NYT: A Reckoning: Iraqi Arms Report Poses Political Test for Bush*

[kskiska]

The preliminary report delivered on Thursday by the chief arms inspector in Iraq forces the Bush administration to come face to face with this reality: that Saddam Hussein's armory appears to have been stuffed with precursors, potential weapons and bluffs, but that nothing found so far backs up administration claims that Mr. Hussein posed an imminent threat to the world.

In public, President Bush says that is not the issue. What should make a difference to Americans, and to the world, he says, is that Mr. Hussein is gone and Iraq is free. "One thing is for certain," Mr. Bush argued last month at a fund-raiser, using a line he repeats often these days. "Terrorist groups will not ever be able to get weapons of mass destruction in Iraq because Saddam Hussein is no more."

But in private, Mr. Bush's political aides concede that it does matter, and it may matter more as the politics of running for president collide with the realities of containing the chaos in occupied Iraq.

(snip)

Mr. Hamilton, who dealt with intelligence issues in Congress, said the problem went beyond politics: it raised questions about whether intelligence could be trusted and used to rally the world to confront the North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons programs.

Should Mr. Bush or his successors make a new argument for a pre-emptive strike against any country suspected of amassing arms, "persuading the world will be that much harder," Mr. Hamilton said.

more…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/03/international/03ASSE.html?hp

[Evanstondem]

1. Bush has already failed the test

He has already squandered his credibility with the rest of the world, unless you count Blair.

[Buns_of_Fire]

6. "persuading the world will be that much harder"

From what I see, the Doofus-in-Chief didn't "persuade the world" LAST time, either! But note that they're laying the groundwork to pin it all on "intelligence failures" from now on. I'm sure that'll earn them a lot of friends at the Agency.

[neverforget]

2. Regime change begins at home. Kick out Bush and Blair and

their war loving lackeys!

[jbeam]

3. Where do they get this stuff?

Click here for more details...
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/03/international/middleeast/03WTEX.html

...and here for what they're saying in the UK.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003452768,00.html

[newyawker99]

8. Hi jbeam!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Pale_Rider]

4. Hopefully ...

... Bush will be gone in 2005 and the world will be free!

[kodi]

5. the little boy who cried WMD and betrayed his country

bush should be tried for treason after he is impeached and convicted.

[E_Zapata]

7. Okay, Bush, let's pretend for a minute:

Let's say that Saddam had to be removed from power:

did it need to be done in 2003?

did it need to be done in a manner that kills our economy and mortgages 3 generations of Americans?

did it need to be done at the expense of losing ALL diplomatic relations with the world?

If it needed to be done in 2003, why couldn't the inspectors have had 1 or 2 more months to do their job?

did it need to be done in a fashion that has essentially immobilized our entire great military?

did it need to be done in a fashion that led to the death of 100s of american troops and over 10,000 Iraqis -- and god knows how many more.

did it need to be done before we could even finish rebuilding Afghanistan?

did it need to be done in a fashion to layer the earth with depleted uranium?

did it need to be done in a fashion that led to the looting of the roots of humanity (the museum, the library and Babylon)?

did it need to be done in a fashion that was destined to lead to what may end up being over 100 years of civil war in Iraq?

did it need to be done in a fashion that has twisted things up for so many countries, like Japan, for example, who has now voted for the 1st time since WW2 to send troops into a war theater?

did it need to be done in a fashion that has led to 1000s of american soldiers being maimed, terrorized, traumatized for life?

did it need to be done in a fashion that required most of our national guard to leave the country for a year or more, thus leaving many families in a lurch AND leaving our cities undefended and unprotected?

I COULD GO ON WITH THIS LIST ALL DAY LONG!

OR, Mr. Bush, were getting your greedy little fingers on some oil reserves what made it such a hot priority?

Remember everyone -- Saddam had cancer. He was going to be dead in no time. ooopps, problem solved.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

9. bush* just will never get it NEVER! he is still just a spoiled little boy

it is apparement in his eyes and face...always...he is incapable of hiding nor disguising it...and this is what makes him a very dangerous man :scared: