Cheney would still have invaded Iraq, no matter what - cites Saddam's 'capability'

[bigtree]

ABC's Jonathan Karl questioned Cheney about Karl Rove saying if the intelligence had been correct the U.S. probably would not have gone to war: http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/12/hotline_after_d_495.html

"I disagree with that. ... As I look at the intelligence with respect to Iraq, what they got wrong was that there weren't any stockpiles. What we found in the after action reports, after the intelligence report was done and then various special groups went and looked at the intelligence and what its validity was. What they found was that Saddam Hussein still had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. He had the technology, he had the people, he had the basic feed stocks. They also found that he had every intention of resuming production once the international sanctions were lifted."

More Cheney: "This was a bad actor and the country's better off, the world's better off, with Saddam gone and I think we made the right decision in spite of the fact that the original NIE was off in some of its major judgments" ("World News," ABC, 12/15).


Cheney in 2002:

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness." (8/29/02)


Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02:

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."


White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"This is about imminent threat."


White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"Absolutely."


George Bush, 7/17/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."

[slipslidingaway]

1. K&R n/t

[spanone]

2. grrrrrr....jail time for this disgusting human being

[bdamomma]

7. these SOB's must be held accountable

we were all played for fools, us and the Congress. And another response of SO WHAT?

God I hate these people.

[endarkenment]

3. What capability?

Couldn't beat Iran even with our help.
Squashed in Gulf Farce I.
Entire military infrastructure (and civilian too) wrecked by 12 years of embargo.

Liar. Criminal.

Shoe now Cheney.

[wildbilln864]

4. I doubt there'd be an Iraq war....

absent 9/11! :shrug: Same with Afghanistan.

[2Design]

5. not sure why this is news - to me this was a known fact before 911 n/t

[bigtree]

6. It's 'news' because Cheney is still touting this line

. . . at a time where only kooks and zealots still believe invading Iraq was about some 'threat' to the U.S..

[2Design]

10. that is the problem - the news media gives him the air to repeat this

lie - this is how they make it true - the news media and corps and rw and repukes do not allow the truth to see the light of day - they repeat lies over and over until they are believed to be truth

[Subdivisions]

8. Wasn't Iraq under U.S and U.N. sanctions for a decade

and even had to trade oil for food after the Gulf War? How the fuck could they have had any "capability" to develop a nuclear arsenal?

Fuck Cheney!

[Johonny]

9. Does Cheney look for monsters under the bed

because he sounds paranoid. Coulda, shoulda, woulda aren't grounds for war.

[Winterblues]

11. Why do people bother listening at all to a confirmed LIAR

Cheney has ZERO Credibility so why does anyone care one whit what he has to say about anything. Everything he has ever said has been proved incorrect.

[bigtree]

12. in this case

. . .we can project his latest lies to his ultimate prosecution