White House Cites Iraq's History of Seeking Arms as Reason for War

[kskiska]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 — The Bush administration, justifying its decision to go to war against Iraq despite its failure since then to find any banned weapons there, said Thursday that even if Saddam Hussein had not amassed stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, the United States could not have afforded to leave him in power because he had a history of trying to acquire them.

On the defensive since its former chief weapons inspector said he now believed that Iraq did not have any substantial stockpiles of banned weapons at the start of the war, the White House sent Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, to appear on the three network morning news programs to carry the message that the war was justified even if Mr. Hussein's weapons stockpiles are ultimately found to have been nonexistent.

"With Saddam Hussein, we were dealing with somebody who had used weapons of mass destruction, who had attacked his neighbors twice, who was allowing terrorists to run in his country and was funding terrorists outside of his country," Ms. Rice said on the "Early Show" on CBS.

(snip)

Ms. Rice continued to rebuff calls from many Democrats and from the former chief weapons inspector, David A. Kay, for an independent election-year inquiry into how the Central Intelligence Agency and other American intelligence organizations apparently misjudged the extent and the sophistication of Mr. Hussein's weapons programs before the war.

But she signaled that President Bush would support a more narrowly focused review of American intelligence capabilities in the war on terrorism if the inquiry could be done at a time and in a manner under the White House's control.

more…
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/politics/30WEAP.html

[gulfcoastliberal]

1. Tell me Lies, Tell me Sweet Little Lies...

Just like she didn't know airplanes could be used as missiles.

[Jazzgirl]

2. What isn't under the WH's control.

Shrub sends the "top targets" sleezy and colon out first to test the water before putting out any more deniability. I hope he does accuse the CIA of giving 'em bad intelligence. I can't wait to see what the CIA has in store for him. :evilgrin:

[AZCat]

3. The worst part...

is that she's such a bad liar. Do they really think that anyone believes this crock of ****?

[punpirate]

4. All the more reason to hammer the fact that...

... there were inspectors on the ground, with absolute authority to investigate anything they wanted. How does Hussein gain weapons with inspections?

And, has Condolleeza Rice lost her capacity to understand the English language? Since when does "independent" equate to "White House control?"

Geez, to quote a movie line, "the bullshit piles up here so quickly, you'd need wings to stay above it."

[Demonaut]

5. you forgot, we asked him to let us in and he wouldnt

so we went in and got him, we gave him an ultimatum and he turned us down.

[punpirate]

6. Hope you mean that facetiously....

... because what you say is diametrically opposed to the facts, on all counts.

Cheers.

[juajen]

9. Don't think demo-not (?) was being facetious

Who bothers to look at facts?

[Demonaut]

22. of course I was being facetious

and its demo-naut like astro-naut, hey, this is DU not the Free Republic, we research the facts, at least I do

[grytpype]

12. In reality...

not only did Saddam let inspectors in, two weeks prior to the invasion he offered to hold elections within two years. Bush invaded anyway. War-no-matter-what was the policy. But why? What could possibly justify what Bush has done?

[Emillereid]

7. As long as Hussein was in power, Cheney couldn't implement

his energy plan to develop Iraqi oil ( remember those maps of Iraqi oil fields that were part of the documents the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch discovered were on the table during Cheney's secretive energy meetings). Besides a war would mean reconstruction money that not only would mean his Halliburton would make some good money ( making his stock holdings soar), but also that them there oil field would be modernized and developed using public money. Once that's done I'm sure Iraqi oil will be privatized. Of the course the military was only too happy to get some action and test all their weaponry as well as their preparedness. Didn't look askance at setting up more of those forward bases to make sure everyone, everywhere understand American interests.

[54anickel]

8. And, and, and, know what else? He tried to kill my daddy! n/t

[Bozvotros]

10. Unedited transcript......

"With Saddam Hussein, we were dealing with somebody who had used weapons of mass destruction, who had attacked his neighbors twice, who was allowing terrorists to run in his country and was funding terrorists outside of his country," Ms. Rice said on the "Early Show" on CBS, without the slightest fear of being contradicted for lack of facts or context. Ms Rice knew that there was no chance of anyone mentioning that her employer's father and the current Secretary of Defense had in fact had encouraged Saddam to gas his people or any other people he wanted, especially if they were Iranian. There was a certain lilt in her voice and twinkle in her eye as Ms. Rice reveled in the fact that noone at one of the largest television news outlets would dare to confront her about her scaremongering about mushroom clouds.

[grytpype]

a time and in a manner under the White House's control. ??????

Oh yeah? That is absolutely not acceptable!

[kodi]

11. Lordy yes, Iracki aggressiveness dates back to Sargon

looky what he did to Lugalzaggisi of Uruk.

we will not be a modern Urek!

[gate of the sun]

13. mesopatamia was once a hot bed of violent uprisings, thats a reason...

and, a you know.... we had to protect our own from that, it was an immenent historical fact that could strike in 45 minutes...

[Zo Zig]

14. Oh Condi

Could you repeat that, I'm not retarded yet.

[Matilda]

15. What does she mean -

by talking about a review of American intelligence capabilities
as long as it's done under White House control? Wouldn't that
be just a teensy bit redundant?

Of course, she couldn't get away with this if only the talking heads
on the show were capable of asking tough questions. But it seems
they're either all conservatives or dull-witted - or is that the
same thing?

[daleo]

16. Warmonger, attack thyself

"With Saddam Hussein, we were dealing with somebody who had used weapons of mass destruction, who had attacked his neighbors twice, who was allowing terrorists to run in his country and was funding terrorists outside of his country," Ms. Rice said on the "Early Show" on CBS.

"With George Bush, we are dealing with somebody who has used weapons of mass destruction, who has attacked foreign countries twice, who is allowing terrorists to run his country and is funding terrorists outside of his country," Ms. Rice should have said on the "Early Show" on CBS.

[DianeG5385]

17. Pathetic

Their story changes daily. You would be a fool to believe their spin. They lied. People died.

[pink_poodle]

18. Gee, and what about their build up of nuclear weapons and.................

other WMD's that the US stockpiles????????????? Think nobody noticed??

[llmart]

19. This administration

changes their reason for attacking Iraq more often than I change my underwear! I need a spreadsheet to keep track of all the various rationales they've given for their illegal/immoral war since they've been in office.

[Mokito]

20. Rings a strangely familiar bell...

"With Saddam Hussein, we were dealing with somebody who had used weapons of mass destruction, who had attacked his neighbors twice, who was allowing terrorists to run in his country and was funding terrorists outside of his country," Ms. Rice said on the "Early Show" on CBS.

I'm not sure why...but random words like Hiroshima, Fat Man, Iran-Contra, Noriega, Nagasaki, Operation Northwoods, Little Boy, CIA and many others keep popping up in my head as I read this. Could anybody possibly have a rational explanation for that?

[joeunderdog]

21. If his history made him so dangerous, why was the #1 business

partner with the Terrorist Nation of Iraq in the 1990's the company headed by the Vice President of the United States, Halliburton? Didn't they have that history then when we supplied them with the technology to generate (terrorist) funds? What changed? Did he get more dangerous because of the generous support of Halliburton?

Or how bout when Rummy was best pals with Saddam? NO history then, or weren't we watching then?

[Danieljay]

23. this is getting laughable . n/t