For the diehards Bush states that he was 1st to say that Iraq had no WMD

G

getreal

#1
"The president bridled at the suggestion that he has been less than forthcoming with the American people about such matters as the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the lack of any connection between the September 11, 2001 attacks and Iraq, and predictions that the war would cost about $50 billion -- far short of the current $400 billion price tag.
"I strongly reject that this administration hasn't been straight with the American people," he said. "The minute we found out they didn't have weapons of mass destruction, I was the first to say so.""


Bush: Congress can't stop troop increase - CNN.com


IN 60 minutes interview President Bush states that when no WMD was found he was first to say it- My question is for the diehards: Even after Bush admits this how can one keep trying to invent WMD in Iraq? THough I am among the 1st to accuse Bush of lying about the WMD going into Iraq why would this man admit that he was wrong by all accounts calling himself missinformed, wrong about the WMD? Simply put it is because there were no WMD and he could not invent a new story to claim there was. The UN was correct all along in thins regard- and I am no great advocate of the UN.
 
B

bla bla

#2
If you think Iraq was really about WMD's for any of the high
level politicos on either side of the isle you are ignorant.

My apologies in advance, but this is true.
 
I

Inkslinger

#5
lol, I'm full of cheap wine.
I missed the bipartisan slant of your comment. Your post seemed
to only mention Bush, and not the legislators on both sides of the
isle that voted for the war.
You mean the legislators that were misled into believing bullshit?
 
G

getreal

#6
You mean the legislators that were misled into believing bullshit?
Certainly those legislators did no homework of thier own. They were politically driven voting in fear of standing against what was at that moment a very popular president and equally not wanting to look weak on the war on terror. In fact the vote they took was not one to invade Iraq. The vote was to allow Bush the power to proceed as a "last resort" - which of course he had no intention of waiting.......
 
R

Righty

#7
Democrats don't care if there were WMDs or there weren't WMDs, all Democrats care about is getting another special interest group to vote for them; braindead war protesters.
 
F

Feslin

#8
Democrats don't care if there were WMDs or there weren't WMDs, all Democrats care about is getting another special interest group to vote for them; braindead war protesters.
Appeal to motive.

You sure do enjoy the use of logical fallacies don't you?
 
F

freckles

#9
Actually, Hans Blix, who was the representative for the UN, so I am going to say he is speaking for the UN never said there were no WMD's before invasion. He said that he could not find any, but that Saddam would not cooperate so that he could not verify if Saddam had destroyed them or not. He also said he would not be shocked it they did, in fact, find them.

Just wanted to make that point clear. The UN never said there were no WMD's. Plus, the members of the UN unanimously passed Resolution 1441. Because of this, it is pretty safe to imply they thought the WMD's existed.
 
F

freckles

#10
Certainly those legislators did no homework of thier own. They were politically driven voting in fear of standing against what was at that moment a very popular president and equally not wanting to look weak on the war on terror. In fact the vote they took was not one to invade Iraq. The vote was to allow Bush the power to proceed as a "last resort" - which of course he had no intention of waiting.......

Washington, D.C. - The House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq unilaterally, remove Saddam Hussein from power and abolish that country's nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry.

Moving the nation closer to a possible second war with Iraq, 77 of 100 senators and 296 of 435 House members voted to authorize the president to "use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

"Not since Congress passed the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution -- which helped bring expansion of the Vietnam War -- has a president won such broad and flexible authority to carry out an undefined military operation, historians say."

10 October 2002
Congress adopted joint resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq. The Republican-controlled House voted 296 to 133 to allow the president to use the military "against the continuing threat" posed by the Iraqi regime. The Democratic-run Senate followed at 1:15 a.m. 11 October with a vote of 77 to 23 for the measure