BUSH ADMITS MISLEADING ON WMD

[TOAD6147]

BUSH ADMITS MISLEADING ON WMD

Less than a year after declaring there was "no doubt the Iraqi regime
continues to possess the most lethal weapons ever devised," President Bush
and the White House began to openly "back away from its WMD assertions
today." The New York Times reported, "White House officials are no longer
asserting that stockpiles of banned weapons would eventually be found" after
their weapons inspector, David Kay said he "doesn't think [WMD] existed"
after the 1991 Gulf War.

The backtracking is reverberating throughout the Bush administration. While
Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations last year that "our
conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and
500 tons of chemical weapons agent," he said this weekend that it could
actually be "zero tons." Powell told the United Nations in 2003 that Iraq
"can produce anthrax," that it might "have produced 25,000 liters" and
showed a video of an Iraqi plane that dumping "2,000 liters of simulated
anthrax" as proof, but he now says they might have produced no anthrax at
all.

Similarly, Vice President Dick Cheney, said before the war, "there is no
doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction...to use
against our friends, against our allies, and against us," but now says the
war was about Iraq's "efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction." The
vice president also cited a classified report his own Administration has
labeled "inaccurate" as the "best source" of proof that Saddam Hussein and
Al Qaeda were linked.

In response, the Administration is beginning to blame the intelligence
community for the WMD fiasco, and planning an internal "review of prewar
intelligence." Administration ally Kay concurred, arguing "I think the
intelligence community owes the president [an apology] rather than the
president owing the American people." Despite Mr. Kay's assertions, experts
who knew the record of U.N. inspections knew that finding no WMD "was always
a strong possibility...but Bush administration officials never acknowledged it."

Earlier reporting found that senior Administration officials deliberately
"bypassed the government's customary procedures for vetting intelligence,"
and the White House set up a separate intelligence apparatus, the "Office of
Special Plans," to "cherry-pick intelligence that supported its pre-existing
position and ignoring all the rest." For example, the president's well-known
declaration in last year's State of the Union, asserting that Iraq "sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa," remained despite CIA demands
to remove such allegations from his speech.

Visit Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion. -->
< http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1155689&l=16075 >

[FTM]

LOL Toad, I'd expect nothing less.

The header clearly indicates that "BUSH ADMITS MISLEADING ON WMD" when that's not the case at all.

Disappointed... not surprised... but disappointed....

[tony_j15]

I agree with FTM. How the heck can I trust anyone when you are as biased and misleading as you claim the Presient to be? here's a few tips.
1) dont put the title in all caps. Make you look like a propagandist n00b
2) present the information clearly from a non affiliated web site. unlike some of my more conservative counterparts, I accept reports from CNN, NBC, etc. When you quote from something like "the daily misleader" alarm bells immediately go off in logical peoples brains.

[wallie_x]

Yep..the ole liberal standby, repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it!

[FTM]

Well in Toads defense, he copied and pasted it exactly as it appear at the misleading site, caps and all. It still doesn't make the headline or the premise anything other than a lie. I believe the thread was probably posted here for the same reason it was posted there... to mislead and give ammunition to those incapable of discerning reality from fiction.

There is no evidence that Bush mislead on WMD's... an he CERTAINLY did not "admit" to doing so as the thread and article title indicate he did.

It's becoming harder and harder to tell if Bush's detractors are just doing this in hopes that those unable to think rationally will begin to believe it... or if they themselves have slipped into a perpetual state of delusion?

[ClubMed]

If we can all agree that this war was not about WMD's then we can start to focus on more important issues than the lies about WMD's.

[whitebeard21]

Wallie x you have called everyone on this board that does not agree with you a liar. I for one am tired of it. I have called George bush a liar and his cabinet members a bunch of liars and I stand by my statements but I have not called anyone on this board a liar.
If this administration wants to admit that they are budgeting 35 billion dollars anualy for an intelligence network that can only plagerize a students report then it is ibvious it is time for a change of administrations.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109409,00.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in562312.shtml

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...A80894DC404482

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0530-05.htm

[Epidemic]

Originally posted by ClubMed
If we can all agree that this war was not about WMD's then we can start to focus on more important issues than the lies about WMD's.

CM that really depends on where the lies genesis was.

If it was Iraq lying to saddam with feigned reports made by people in his camp, then there is no lies on our side. Intel of fake programs with will look just like real programs from an intel prospective if you do not have infiltrators in the ranks of the program.

Now as said before if it is found that the US fabricated the evidence then I think heads should roll. As it is with people on the ground and iraqis in custody it is still difficult to get a handle on things. Imagine doing it from tapped phone calls and rumors and disgruntled former workers.

[FTM]

I'm not sure what your upset about whitebeard, except that you're offended that others use the same criteria for defining a "liar" as you do. There is no evidence that Bush has lied to or mislead the country or the Congress. It's obvious that Bush made some inaccurate statements, and it's obvious that Saddams capabilities were over-estimated, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Bush was not basing his decisions and statements on the best inteligence available at that time.


If someone wants to find fault with the inteligence gathering capabilities and decision making of the Administration, that's thier perogative, but if they're willing to make the baseless accusation that Bush lied, then they're fooling themselves...some might even say that they are lying to themselves.

[Epidemic]

FTM well put.