Just a rumor.....
Better delete this before you get scolded like i did when i posted a newsmax article.
They tried to chop off my beak when i posted from newsmax
I feel your pain.
Mike told me the rumor, I news-googled it, and there are several sources to choose from. But, it's a rumor, and not necessarily a very strong one.
Cheney was suppose to retire 3 years ago.... then 2... then 1... then this summer... now this....
Among the talking heads there has been discussion of a potential indictment against Cheney .
Among the taking heads there was previously discussion of WMD in Iraq.
Quit watching Fox news.
My sources have been mostly right all along about Bush and Iraq, but no one is certain about this grand jury.
Watch PBS and take the rest with a grain of salt.
heh, confirmation bias.
Did PBS actually say that "there are no WMD at all in Iraq"?
I watch Fox news, but don't take it seriously. The belief that there were WMD in Iraq prior to invasion was almost universal. Did you actually believe before the war that Saddam had no WMD? If so, what evidence persuaded you to believe that?
I thought there were no weapons, but I *also* thought that other countries were more of a threat. So -the whole picture was nuts - Syria and NK were greater threats, but bush kept pushing to invade Iraq.
My "evidence" for believing Iraq had no WMD was simple: their neighbors weren't concerned. Their neighbors were completely *unconcerned* about the 'possibility' of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.
If their neighbors didn't consider Iraq a threat, why should the USA?
That was my main reason. My other reasons were the UN didn't think we should go in, the inspectors never sounded certain that they had weapons (if anything they seemed to generally err on the side of "no good evidence for weapons"), and Bush's demeanor has always seemed hell bent on his personal agenda and he also strikes me as being a cheat. * The arguments for WMD were strained. And the WMD "mantra" was drummed round the clock. (I worry that the case against Iran is going the same way, and that it is nothing much more than *psychology* that is making people think Iran is a threat. How stupid is that?)
In short, the evidence against WMD, was that all of the evidence *for* WMD was so flimsy. And Iraq's neighbors - who would not be subject to US propaganda but who *would* have every reason to be aware of Iraq's true status as a threat - were unconcerned.
(*Lately, Bush's occasional humbled demeanor has me thinking more charitably towards him as a person.)
I figured there were WMDs for one reason: when Saddam was given the ultimatum to allow full access to inspectors or be deposed, he balked, and that sure made him look guilty.
I remember watching some news channel and they're reporting on Bush's 'evidence'. Some black-and-white picture comes up on the screen of supposed WMD sites, except it's all blocky. You can't make out a single thing in this picture, all they did was put a red circle around a black blotch on a grey background, and I'm sitting there thinking "wtf?".
I didn't think there were any weapons.
Yeah, an African American female President.. this should be interesting
OH NO HE DIDNT MENTION RACE!
A third party's dream scenario:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Hillary Condi Laura.htm
Against better republican candidates Hillary loses:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Hillary McCain Rudy Sept 16.htm
Right, and my understanding was we obliterated pretty much everything in the Gulf War.
The only reason for some doubt, but I knew Saddam was as much a liar as Bush.
Look away, quick! Don’t go to the dark side!!
Nice logic but your premise is wrong. The President of Egypt and the King of Jordan (e.g) were practically begging Bush to do something about Saddam's WMD - they were more than a little concerned.
Other countries in the Middle East were not fans of Saddam. However, in searching for a credible source regarding Egypt and Jordon begging Bush to invade Iraq, I can't find anything. In fact, Iran would be most concerned seems to me -- But nothing.
The belief was almost universal because the administration told us that they had definitive proof that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. If they had mentioned that their "proof" came from an alcoholic with a reputation for making up intelligence, then I guarantee you that most people wouldn't have believed it.
I never heard that. I'd love a source .... ? I'm happy to say "I was wrong" but really haven't heard that these countries thought Saddam had WMD.
Thanks in advance.
You also were aware that openly denying the possession (of WMD) makes Saddam a sitting duck against both Iran as well as internal rebellion, right ? He needed the threat of WMD to stay in power.
Do a Google search on the terms 'mubarak warning wmd iraq" or similarly with Abdullah and you'll get a LOT of references. You'll have to filter through the political spin of the news outlets, blogs, journals and so on.
Here's a couple:
I've seen Egyptian sites with the same message but those articles have mysteriously disappeared.
It's odd how everyone seems to overlook or ignore that many Arab nations, European intelligence (French, British, German, etc., etc.), Russian intelligence and many many others ALL told the US that Hussein had WMDs and expressed grave concerns about his possession of them.
Whatever you think of Dubya and Tony, they were not alone on the issue of WMDs in Iraq. Whether it was appropriate to invade is another question even if the WMD issue provided part of the rationale. I'm not particularly fond of either of them but I also think it is unfair and a gross oversimplification, as many do, to label them as dishonest thereby ending hope of serious consideration of the matter.
You didn't try hard enough.
I guess - I just figured that if I'm Saddam, I'd rather deal with internal rebellion than an invasion from the US. What do you want me to say? He fooled me.
Separate names with a comma.