Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (24157)	1/13/2004 2:35:44 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793676

"<<DIANE SAWYER: (You) stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —>>" Now that this comment is put in its proper context, Prez Bush's response was appropriate & understandable. He was being pressed repeatedly when he responded...... Remember 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'? For Bush, They Are a Nonissue <edited - full text at link below> ...."So what's the difference?" he responded at one point as he was pressed on the topic during an interview by Diane Sawyer of ABC News..... ....In the interview, Mr. Bush said removing Mr. Hussein from power was justified even without the recovery of any banned weapons. As he has since his own weapons inspector, David Kay, issued an interim report in October saying he had uncovered extensive evidence of weapons programs in Iraq but no actual weapons, Mr. Bush said the existence of such programs, by violating United Nations Security Council resolutions, provided ample grounds for the war. "If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger," Mr. Bush continued, referring to Mr. Hussein. "That's what I'm trying to explain to you. A gathering threat, after 9/11, is a threat that needed to be dealt with, and it was done after 12 long years of the world saying the man's a danger." Pressed to explain the president's remarks, Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said Mr. Bush was not backing away from his assertions about Mr. Hussein's possession of banned weapons. "We continue to believe that he had weapons of mass destruction programs and weapons of mass destruction," Mr. McClellan said on Wednesday..... ....In trying to build public and international support for toppling Mr. Hussein, the administration cited, with different emphasis at different times, the banned weapons, links between the Iraqi leader and terrorist organizations, a desire to liberate the Iraqi people and a policy of bringing democracy to the Middle East. When it came to describing the weapons program, Mr. Bush never hedged before the war. "If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?" Mr. Bush asked during a speech in Cincinnati in October 2002..... ....In the weeks after the fall of Baghdad in April, the White House was equally explicit. "One of the reasons we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction," Ari Fleischer, then the White House spokesman, told reporters on May 7. "And nothing has changed on that front at all." On Wednesday Mr. McClellan, when pressed, only restated the president's belief that weapons would eventually be found. Mr. Bush, despite being asked repeatedly about the issue in different ways by Ms. Sawyer, never did say it, except to note Mr. Hussein's past use of chemical weapons..... ...."And if he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction?" Ms. Sawyer asked the president, according to a transcript provided by ABC. "Diane, you can keep asking the question," Mr. Bush replied. "I'm telling you — I made the right decision for America because Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction, invaded Kuwait. But the fact that he is not there is, means America's a more secure country." query.nytimes.com.

To: Lane3 who wrote (24157)	1/13/2004 2:55:15 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793676

"I think a big part of the problem during the period leading up to the war was the definition of WMD. At some point it changed, at least as the term was used popularly. WMD used to mean nukes." The use of the term WMD by the UN, the Clinton & Bush Admin's regarding WMD was consistent. It was not misrepresented or exaggerated...... EXECUTIVE ORDER 12938 - - - - - - - PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION November 14, 1994 PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON ustreas.gov Unresolved Disarmament Issues - Iraq's Proscribed Weapons Programmes fas.org Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs fas.org STATEMENT BY DAVID KAY ON THE INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE IRAQ SURVEY GROUP (ISG) fas.org Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction Statement by Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet on the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction Message 19669853 Powell Defends Bush-Style Diplomacy Message 19670571 Message 19670589 Iraq's WMD Programs: Culling Hard Facts from Soft Myths odci.gov. Iraq's WMD's Strategic Choices, Intelligence Challenges Robert Hutchings Chairman, National Intelligence Council Message 19669942 Powell Says Kay Report Confirms Iraq Defied U.N. Res. 1441 usinfo.state.gov Clinton believed Iraq had WMD Fri 9 Jan 2004 Message 19674178