- #1
klusener
- 62
- 0
I have been hearing this from a couple of news sources, might be old news in your country..
Bush said:"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
Bush said:Bush acknowledged that "some of the decisions I've made up to now have affected our standing in parts of the world," but predicted that most Muslims will eventually see America as a beacon of freedom and democracy.
"There's no question we've got to continue to do a better job of explaining what America is all about," he said.
Gokul43201 said:And for those that are stymied by Waste's link, The Onion is not a serious news source. It only parodies news events - a print equivalent to the Daily Show.
Excuse me? Are you trying to tell me that North Korea and Iran do NOT have WMD? That's not what the Bush Administration has said. Officials in the Bush administration, and Bush himself, have said at many times that Iran and North Korea do have WMD, but we are going to try diplomacy with them instead of war. They are part of the Axis of Evil afterall.Gokul43201 said:And for those that are stymied by Waste's link, The Onion is not a serious news source. It only parodies news events - a print equivalent to the Daily Show.
Gokul43201 said:And for those that are stymied by Waste's link, The Onion is not a serious news source. It only parodies news events - a print equivalent to the Daily Show.
"Based on what we know today, the president would have taken the same action because this is about protecting the American people," said Press Secretary Scott McClellan.
That's said a lot, and its still isn't true. That was always 1 of 3 reasons to go. It may have been the main reason, but it wasn't the "whole" reason.Pyrovus said:Nice of them to finally admit that they would have attacked Iraq even if they did know there were no WMD, blatantly contradicting the pre-war lie that the whole reason for invading was about WMD.[emphasis added]
russ_watters said:That's said a lot, and its still isn't true. That was always 1 of 3 reasons to go. It may have been the main reason, but it wasn't the "whole" reason.
russ_watters said:That's said a lot, and its still isn't true. That was always 1 of 3 reasons to go. It may have been the main reason, but it wasn't the "whole" reason.
WMDs stand for weapons of mass destruction, which include nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. They were being searched for due to concerns about their potential threat to national security and global stability.
Yes, the search for WMDs officially ended in 2004 when the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) concluded that there were no stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq. This was confirmed by subsequent investigations and reports.
The search for WMDs in Iraq received a lot of attention due to the US government's claim that they posed an imminent threat to national security, which was used as a justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The failure to find WMDs raised questions about the accuracy of this claim.
Yes, there are ongoing efforts to locate and eliminate WMDs around the world. This includes inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), as well as efforts to secure and destroy existing stockpiles of WMDs.
The failure to find WMDs in a country that was believed to possess them can have serious consequences, including damage to credibility and trust between countries, political backlash and loss of support for military interventions, and potential threats to national security if these weapons fall into the wrong hands.