Register to reply

Did Bush lie about Iraqi weapons labs ?

by Ivan Seeking
Tags: bush, iraqi weapons labs
Share this thread:
Ivan Seeking
#1
Apr12-06, 07:39 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,501
...On 29 May, Mr Bush said in an interview: "We found biological laboratories... They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.

...But according to the Washington Post, a secret fact-finding mission to Iraq had reported to the Pentagon two days earlier that the lorries had no link to biological warfare.[continued]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4903592.stm

The White House claims that Bush was speaking to the concensus of the intelligence reports to date. This particular report was only submitted two days before Bush made these statements, and it usually takes more than two days to review the reports. Okay, fair enough, then my question is this: If Bush didn't have the interim report from the group assigned to look for WMDs, on what intelligence were his statements based? Why did he announce that we had found weapons when the investigation obviously wasn't complete and the report still due? Did the investigators change their minds? Was there ever a conclusion that we had found WMDs? What justifies the degree of certainty shown by Bush? I would like to see the intelligence that justifies his statements.

Edit: I had posted the wrong excerpt.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
'Office life' of bacteria may be their weak spot
Lunar explorers will walk at higher speeds than thought
Philips introduces BlueTouch, PulseRelief control for pain relief
Ivan Seeking
#2
Apr12-06, 07:43 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,501
Here is more information.

The Post did not say that Bush knew what he was saying was false. But ABC News did during a report on "Good Morning America," and McClellan demanded an apology and an on-air retraction. ABC News said later in a clarification on its Web site that Charles Gibson had erred. McClellan said he had received an apology.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1836079
Ivan Seeking
#3
Apr12-06, 08:08 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,501
It seems that the team was sent on the 27th to see if the trailers were in fact mobile biological labs, and then returned an answer that that these clearly are not weapons labs [called them sand toilets], two days later - the 29th. Two days after that Bush made the public statements. And here is the kicker: Four months later, Chenney again made the same claim on Meet The Press.

edward
#4
Apr12-06, 08:15 PM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 883
Did Bush lie about Iraqi weapons labs ?

If Bush did not know that what he was saying was false, he should have. The trailers turned out to be used in the manufacture of hydrogen. Perhaps Bush thought hydrogen was a biological weapon.

Here are several links with a video from CNN in the first one.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604120015

And this from the second:

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/break...ry.asp?id=6468
Ivan Seeking
#5
Apr12-06, 08:18 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,501
Here we go:

Sunday, September 14, 2003 GUEST: Dick Cheney, vice president Tim Russert, moderator

VICE PRES. CHENEY: ...Same on biological weapons—we believe he’d developed the capacity to go mobile with his BW production capability because, again, in reaction to what we had done to him in ’91. We had intelligence reporting before the war that there were at least seven of these mobile labs that he had gone out and acquired. We’ve, since the war, found two of them. They’re in our possession today, mobile biological facilities that can be used to produce anthrax or smallpox or whatever else you wanted to use during the course of developing the capacity for an attack.[continued]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

In fact it is worth reading the entire transcript. How many false claims do you count?
edward
#6
Apr12-06, 11:57 PM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 883
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking
Here we go:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

In fact it is worth reading the entire transcript. How many false claims do you count?
Gawd, I lost count on the false claims. Rummy, Rice and Wolfowitz all had their own variations of the same false information.

The American people to a great extent are not reacting to recent revelations of deception. It is almost as if they are suffering from false information fatigue.

When Bush finally admitted this week that he was the one who declassified the yellow cake information in Niger, there was only a small story on page two of my local paper. And to think that during the Clinton scandal a BJ made the front pages for nearly two months, it is puzzling?
BobG
#7
Apr13-06, 01:41 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
BobG's Avatar
P: 2,284
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4903592.stm

The White House claims that Bush was speaking to the concensus of the intelligence reports to date. This particular report was only submitted two days before Bush made these statements, and it usually takes more than two days to review the reports. Okay, fair enough, then my question is this: If Bush didn't have the interim report from the group assigned to look for WMDs, on what intelligence were his statements based? Why did he announce that we had found weapons when the investigation obviously wasn't complete and the report still due? Did the investigators change their minds? Was there ever a conclusion that we had found WMDs? What justifies the degree of certainty shown by Bush? I would like to see the intelligence that justifies his statements.
Looking at the time line of events, you would expect at least three preliminary reports: someone reported they had discovered the trailers, officials in Washington decided these could be the WMD they were looking for and sent someone out to do a detailed inspection, and the inspectors prepared a preliminary report about what they found.

You have three preliminary reports documenting each step in the process. Bush could have provided the most current status based on progress to date, or he could decide to use whichever report he found most reliable, or he could pick whichever report supported his personal opinion.

Bush decided a preliminary report prepared thousands of miles away by officials who never saw the trailers first hand was more reliable than a preliminary report prepared by officials who had inspected the trailers first hand. How could anyone see that as an illogical decison.

Depending on your opinion of Bush, the incident is yet another confirmation that Bush is being let down by an incompetent intel system, or yet another confirmation that Bush is honest and tries hard, but is incompetent, or yet another confirmation that Bush has intentionally misled the nation every step of the way when it comes to Iraq.

Whichever option you pick is bad news.
Astronuc
#8
Apr13-06, 01:55 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,915
Well, since Bush had 'planned' to invade Iraq prior to becoming president - it would appear he was looking for any justification to support his goal.

Bush seems quite comfortable fabricating evidence, or at least misrepresenting evidence. But then - where was the congressional oversight?
Ivan Seeking
#9
Apr13-06, 01:56 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,501
BobG, how would you explain Chenney's comments?
Ivan Seeking
#10
Apr13-06, 02:00 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,501
Quote Quote by Astronuc
Well, since Bush had 'planned' to invade Iraq prior to becoming president - it would appear he was looking for any justification to support his goal.

Bush seems quite comfortable fabricating evidence, or at least misrepresenting evidence. But then - where was the congressional oversight?
Hopefully the congressional protection racket will be blown apart this Nov. When you see Newt standing next to Hillary [in the news the other day], you know the Republicans are in biiiiiiiiiiig trouble.
SOS2008
#11
Apr13-06, 05:27 PM
PF Gold
SOS2008's Avatar
P: 1,554
After reading through this thread, I stand by my initial reaction to the title, which was: When has Bush told the truth?
BobG
#12
Apr14-06, 08:46 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
BobG's Avatar
P: 2,284
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking
BobG, how would you explain Chenney's comments?
I like Keith Olberman's question on Countdown last night: If you had a group locked inside a building that had never been outside that insisted the Sun rose in the West and an opposing group that claimed it had been outside and that they personally saw the Sun rise in the East, which group would you believe?

Bush/Cheney aren't caged in by 'in-the-box thinking', such as listening to folks overly committed to reality. Bush and Cheney make their own reality.
Astronuc
#13
Apr14-06, 09:48 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,915
Actually, this is about the Ford Administration, but Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others played prominent roles, including Team B in the Pentagon. And what is Team B, who are they, what did they do, and where are they today?

'31 Days': Between Two Presidencies by Barry Werth
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5339588

Fresh Air from WHYY, April 13, 2006 · On Aug. 9, 1974, Richard M. Nixon's resignation as president of the United States became official, and Vice President Gerald Ford took office.

"I am acutely aware that you have not elected me as your president by your ballots," he said in his swearing-in speech on that day. "And so I ask you to confirm me as your president with your prayers."

The period following that day, up until Ford's pardoning of Nixon, is the focus of Barry Werth's 31 Days. Werth delivers a blow-by-blow account of the transition, including the roles of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (then ambassador to NATO) and Vice President Dick Cheney, who was Rumsfeld's deputy at the time.
BobG
#14
Apr14-06, 11:33 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
BobG's Avatar
P: 2,284
Quote Quote by Astronuc
Actually, this is about the Ford Administration, but Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others played prominent roles, including Team B in the Pentagon. And what is Team B, who are they, what did they do, and where are they today?

'31 Days': Between Two Presidencies by Barry Werth
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5339588
The book apparently isn't very kind to Cheney and Rumsfeld (New York Observer review).

Articles on Team B are interesting, but a little tough to judge their credibility.

Team B articles:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site...J8OVF&b=140711
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.p..._ofn=apr93cahn
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analy.../0402teamb.php
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NG62FDUGL1.DTL
Astronuc
#15
Apr14-06, 12:44 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,915
The interview o Werth is interesting.

Basically Cheney, Rumsfeld and others were upset by the perceived weakness of the presidential office and of the US in world affairs. They believed that the US need to increase its strength and flex it's muscle in the world - which is basically what every imperial power has done throughout history. They also needed a strong president - a unitary executive - and a compliant congress.

Team B apparently 'hyped' the threat of USSR, and after the dissolution of USSR, Team B's assessments were shown to be largely untrue. It appears that the same people were involved in 'hyping' the threat of Iraq and WMD.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Iraqi police force infiltrated by ins s Current Events 9
Bush ignorance of his own marriage amendment Current Events 6
Fear will send Bush into WhiteHouse again? Current Events 22
America is a Peace-Loving Nation : George W. Bush Current Events 5
Mobile labs aren't labs, it seems... Current Events 2