Media Ignores Bush Exoneration
Tuesday, March 14, 2006 at 10:41PM On January 28, 2003, President George W. Bush delivered a State of the Union speech (full text) just 2 months before US troops entered Iraq. In his speech, the President made this statement as further proof that intervention with Saddam Hussein was not only necessary but inevitable:
"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa ."
By October of that same year, those 16 words of the State of the Union address came back to haunt the President when it appeared the intelligence supporting the attempted procurement by Saddam of uranium from Niger was false. Political opponents accused the President of taking the country to war under false pretenses. Hence, "Bush Lied" rhetoric became the standard line of Democrats throughout America and anti-war activists throughout the world.
Since the war in Iraq began in March 2003, US troops have confiscated 3,000 hours of audiotapes of Saddam Hussein chairing his Revolutionary Command Council before the war and 48,000 boxes of records documenting his regime's military activities. In February of this year, the first audio tapes were translation to English and examined after at the February meeting by the International Intelligence Summit. Some of the findings from Saddam's recordings include:
-Saddam stated Iraq will allow UNSCOM to confirm their erroneous pre-war assessments
-Saddam was confident that Iraq would "overcome" the inspection program
-Saddam pointed out a major advantage – keeping the precursors for chemical weapons separated until needed and they can be explained away as having civilian use.
Removal of Warheads
From Tape ISGC-2003-M0003997:
Saddam: "Before the hostility, they had information and deductions that we were working in the direction we described, a dangerous direction. Now, we can confirm for them this false direction. I mean, according to the explanation."
Saddam’s WMD Tapes (PowerPoint English) can be accessed at the International Intelligence Summit (scroll 1/2 way down page for full collection of audio and translation to Power Point)
Now, the Washington Times is reporting that the...
"audiotapes of Saddam Hussein and his aides underscore the Bush administration's argument that Baghdad was determined to rebuild its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction once the international community had tired of inspections and left the Iraqi dictator alone.
"In addition to the captured tapes, U.S. officials are analyzing thousands of pages of newly translated Iraqi DOCUMENTS THAT TELL OF SADDAM SEEKING URANIUM FROM AFRICA in the mid-1990s."
In other words, the newly translated Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein regime show that PRESIDENT BUSH WAS FACTUALLY ACCURATE WHEN HE TOLD THE NATION IN HIS 2003 STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS THAT IRAQ HAD RECENTLY SOUGHT URANIUM FROM AFRICA.
Also, IN this must see interview with Bill O'Reilly, LT GEN Tom McInerney described the tapes on the Fox News Channel, February 21, 2006, and why the Bush administration has not flaunted the tapes publicly:
"Russia, France & China were probably helping the Iraqis with precursors and other materials. They wouldn’t want that because they’re 3 of the 5 permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and they’re looking at the overall war on terror and they’re going to need their help in the future."
In other words, President Bush is too much of a gentleman to embarrass and humiliate 'allies' like Russia and France, despite the assertion from former Iraqi generals and officials close to Saddam claim Russia was key in the removal of WMD from Iraq to Syria.
Finally, President Bush has ordered that this critical evidence confiscated by U.S. forces after they liberated Iraq be made public. Bush's initial order came on Feb. 16, the day after ABC News broadcast snippets from 12 hours of Saddam audiotapes obtained by FBI translator and former U.N. weapons inspector Bill Tierney.
(Right: SFC Proctor in Baghdad, 2003, Saddam's throne in front of a mural depicting intercontinental ballistic missiles, showing Saddam's intent to use/build WMD arsenal. Large Photo Accompanying story)
The evidence on the tapes and documents cannot be denied, even by Bush hating Democrats. Oh, the evidence can and is being ignored, but not denied. Past statements that confirm the ongoing content released in these tapes are now validated:
Gen. Georges Sada, Saddam Hussein’s former #2 Air Force official (Video Interview on Hannity & Colmes):
"After the Gulf War, he (Gen Amir Rashid Ubaidi, the former Iraqi Deputy Air Force commander) was taken into custody by the Americans and imprisoned in Iraq. He had been in charge of the ‘superweapons’ program but claimed that Iraq never had chemical weapons or WMDs of any kind; of course, that wasn’t true and he, of all people, knew it."
"Saddam realized, this time, (Operation Iraqi Freedom) the Americans are coming," Mr. Sada said. "They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians."
(Hamza went on to make the al-Qaeda connection in more detail)
Vice President Dick Cheney in an interview in April 2004, confirmed his belief that Saddam's WMD had been moved to Syria.
Ariel Sharon, Israel's Prime Minister, said in an appearance on Israel’s Channel 2 on December 23, 2002:
"Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria."
The list goes on. The media will eventually be forced to air some of the sensational findings on the Saddam tapes. These are in Saddam's own words; no matter how they hate it, it IS news and exonerates the President. Now who's the liar?
Pertinent posts:
WMD Story Ignored by Media
Finding Iraq's WMD
A Soldier's Account of WMD from Saddam's Perspective
Expose the Left Expose the Left
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/411840
Iraq, WMD, Wilson/Plame 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (64)
Why are not US and UK troops invading Syria right now hunting for WMD there? What are they waiting for too?
Back in the early 1980 (when I was an undergraduate student finishing a bachelors degree in electrical engineering) I became interested in the debate about nuclear power. I was surprised - horrified, actually - at the sensationalism and scientific innacuracy of the MSM back then. There was no Internet, and thus no check on the MSM's power. Journalists alternated dark stories about the dangers of nuclear fission with wildly optimistic (and technically innacurate) stories about solar, wind, and geothermal power. Journalists seem to treat the issue of nuclear power as a boxing match between the bad guys (defenders of nuclear power) and the good guys (environmentalists, etc.). No alternative points of view were allowed.
The debate changed my view of the MSM forever. Never again did I take anything they said at face value. Mistakes of that magnitude are simply not made. Nothing in the 20+ years since has changed my mind.
Amy, it's possible that the MSM lacks the technical expertise to properly evaluate the evidence on Saddam's WMD program. When you add in the liberial bias of the MSM, I don't see how we can expect anything other that the sorry state of journalisn that we have now. Too many modern journalists see left-wing activism and journalism as being the same thing.
http://www.johnnyproctor.com/sqsp2/thronelarge.jpg
AMY -
OUTSTANDING article, my friend! You may find a bit less-than-norml "moonbat activity" on this article - as you point out, the evidence in Saddam's own words is indesputable.
I hope we won't have to wait for the History Books before this comes to widespread public attention.
GREAT JOB!!!
Thanks for posting this. I've heard the theory of Saddam relocating the WMD's from Iraq to Syria before. Obviously there's a lot more to that story (if it's true) than that simple scenario, but I find it easy to believe the basic facts of it... esp with Saddam's own lieutenants corroborating it. I could also believe Russia is an accessory of the move considering their increasing with the likes of Iran.
Aside from the conservative Christian angle, one of the reasons I read your blog is that you write about good news (whereas the MSM tends not to as a generality). This is most certainly good news (although I think we can all agree that there were a lot of good reasons for coalition forces to invade Iraq that have nothing to do with WMD's).
Good job!
I just found the AP story at 22:18 that there was a recent release of docs from the Administration regarding Saddam and WMD. I found a cute little doc over at the Army doc center at Leavenworth.
Saddam was planning, and authorized, the use of ricin, sarin, and as a kicker, mustard gas. Multiple delivery options were being discussed. Holding the attack (on Iranians) due to there not being enough GAS FOR THEM TO HAVE A RESERVE left over, so they WANTED TO MAKE MORE BEFORE ATTACKING!
Evil comes in many forms. In this case, evil was in a hole in the ground with da spi-dahs!
Take care Amy, love your post, as always!
The White House released the National Security Strategy today.
In the section entitled Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with WMDs it states:
“The Iraq Survey Group also found that pre-war intelligence estimates of Iraqi WMD stockpiles were wrong – a conclusion that has been confirmed by a bipartisan commission and congressional investigations. We must learn from this experience if we are to counter successfully the very real threat of proliferation.”
You can find the statement here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionV.html
@ J Rob: I have to agree with you! Even catching Saddam in the act isn't good enough for them. I wish these people could have lived in Iraq under Saddam in the 'good ole days'...
Mwalimu Daudi, excellent comments! Thanks for sharing that experience. Eye opening indeed. I think your comment about the MSM lacking the technical expertise to properly evaluate the evidence on Saddam's WMD program is also right on the money.
Timmer, I think you may be right that there will be less liberal troll activity in this entry and that's fine by me. Except for "georg bush". This is truly becoming a slam dunk. Liberals are very impatient and want all the answers NOW, but that isn't realistic. They want instant success in war, instant WMD finds (um, our soldiers are busy fighting the enemy and training Iraqis... we don't have the time right now to go on a treasure hunt).
PCD, I believe you. In the end, unfortunately, people believe what they want instead of truth. People, it turns out, are incredibly self-serving, but there are those who are wiling to look for the good and be honest. I hope it's the majority but I doubt it.
Trent, when I have posted in the past about such matters, like GEN Sada and Iraqi scientists and cabinet members, and skeptics have always said, "They're selling a book! HELLO! That means it's not true!" Of course that means nothing and books are how you disseminate information, but who can argue with Saddam's own words? It's actually turning out to be a good thing that he is such an egomaniac. Go figure! Also, thanks for the encouragement. I often feel like I'm not nearly as positive as I want to be.
Toni, agreed. And Johnny's feet didn't touch the ground because the throne was meant to be very intimidating and there's an accompanying foot rest for it somewhere. Sadly, that room is where many Iraqis met their end. Saddam would invite them in while he was on the throne and have them executed in front of him. I saw a documentary that included this info on the History Channel and I noted it was the same exact room with the throne and mural behind it. Very sad.
Why did they not publish it? Why is what they *did* publish so weak?
Secrecy is necessary for most of the intellegence gathering to protect the sources. Surely you're in favor of this for newspapers, so why not the government in a time of war? And why does the public need to know all the intellegence? Why risk outing sources and have them stop cooperating?
By following that one rule you will always have an advantage. It's been proven in so many venues, not just war, that this is academic. Ahhh, academia, where keeping your intel secret is feared and abhorent.
Anyone know how Yamamoto's plane was shot down during WWII. If you do, then, you need not ask questions or wonder why intel is important, not released, and kept secret. And, if you have never been engaged in an operation where intel is key, again, you'd not be asking these questions. (i'm posting on this later today - great piece of history)
Unless you've been "in it", or have learned from past history why this is important, you'll never understand and you will continue to live in a conspiracy driven world.
And that, my friends, is why so many hate President Bush. He does understand, he does take action, and he does protect his sources and his relationships with those countries that help us in the GWOT by providing us intel. If you think he is a "rube", you are sorely mistaken. Better yet, continue to think he is a yokel and you'll be outsmarted - it's the perfect ruse. :)
Take care, Amy and Johnny - great thread!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionV.html
The UNSC unanimously passed Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, calling for full and immediate compliance by the Iraqi regime with its disarmament obligations. Once again, Saddam defied the international community. According to the Iraq Survey Group, the team of inspectors that went into Iraq after Saddam Hussein was toppled and whose report provides the fullest accounting of the Iraqi regime’s illicit activities:
“Saddam continued to see the utility of WMD. He explained that he purposely gave an ambiguous impression about possession as a deterrent to Iran. He gave explicit direction to maintain the intellectual capabilities. As U.N. sanctions eroded there was a concomitant expansion of activities that could support full WMD reactivation. He directed that ballistic missile work continue that would support long-range missile development. Virtually no senior Iraqi believed that Saddam had forsaken WMD forever. Evidence suggests that, as resources became available and the constraints of sanctions decayed, there was a direct expansion of activity that would have the effect of supporting future WMD reconstitution.”
With the elimination of Saddam’s regime, this threat has been addressed, once and for all.
The Iraq Survey Group also found that pre-war intelligence estimates of Iraqi WMD stockpiles were wrong – a conclusion that has been confirmed by a bipartisan commission and congressional investigations. We must learn from this experience if we are to counter successfully the very real threat of proliferation.
First, our intelligence must improve. The President and the Congress have taken steps to reorganize and strengthen the U.S. intelligence community. A single, accountable leader of the intelligence community with authorities to match his responsibilities, and increased sharing of information and increased resources, are helping realize this objective.
Second, there will always be some uncertainty about the status of hidden programs since proliferators are often brutal regimes that go to great lengths to conceal their activities. Indeed, prior to the 1991 Gulf War, many intelligence analysts underestimated the WMD threat posed by the Iraqi regime. After that conflict, they were surprised to learn how far Iraq had progressed along various pathways to try to produce fissile material.
Third, Saddam’s strategy of bluff, denial, and deception is a dangerous game that dictators play at their peril. The world offered Saddam a clear choice: effect full and immediate compliance with his disarmament obligations or face serious consequences. Saddam chose the latter course and is now facing judgment in an Iraqi court. It was Saddam’s reckless behavior that demanded the world’s attention, and it was his refusal to remove the ambiguity that he created that forced the United States and its allies to act. We have no doubt that the world is a better place for the removal of this dangerous and unpredictable tyrant, and we have no doubt that the world is better off if tyrants know that they pursue WMD at their own peril.
"The Iraq Survey Group also found that pre-war intelligence estimates of Iraqi WMD stockpiles were wrong – a conclusion that has been confirmed by a bipartisan commission and congressional investigations. We must learn from this experience if we are to counter successfully the very real threat of proliferation."
To which I say: Don't be so eager to admit you are wrong if you still may be right. I would assume the WH published this report (or at least drafted it) prior to the revelation of Saddam's tapes which explicitly reveal his possesion of WMD, plans to employ WMD and clandestine movement of WMD to Syria. I don't know how much more explicit the evidence has to be; the Democrats sure thought a few tapes were sufficient to impeach Richard M. Nixon.
This is now published, in an almost complete form, and it surprised every commentor by being incredibly weak compared to the hyperbole Blair used at the time when describing it. The US and UK extensively share intelligence, so it'd be unusual for the Americans to have had something more.
This may look like a small point, did Bush lie, compared with Saddam's obvious inadequacies and deluded ambitions... but I can't approve of my country lying about why we go to war. That's one of those moral non-negotiables.
Your’re right, the statement I highlighted from the National Security Strategy doesn’t disprove anything in the article. I guess the point I was trying to make (in my own clumsy way) was that the issue about WMD’s was not whether Saddam Hussein intended to develop WMD’s at some point in the future but that he actually already had them (i.e. the stockpiles). I think this is what most people are referring to when they say the President lied. I do not believe he lied, though.
Johnny,
The President’s National Security Strategy was published yesterday (3/16/06). The tapes were translated in February. I think you're right that most of the NSS was written prior to the knowledge of these tapes, but if the information was that important why didn’t they hold off on publishing the NSS for a month or at least mention the existence of the tapes?
"V. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction
A. Summary of National Security Strategy 2002"
You also said,
"the issue about WMD's was not whether Saddam Hussein intended to develop WMD's at some point in the future but that he actually already had them (i.e. the stockpiles)."
As I understand it, the stockpiles issue is irrelevant. I saw a documentary recently about the 1995 Tokyo, Japan subway gasing by 3 nutcases in a bizarre religious cult. It was the deadliest terror attack in Japan. This fat Japanese guy who had an obsession with both Jesus and drugs told his followers to carry out a terror attack as a way of diverting attention from a criminal trial he was going through on some other criminal charges. It worked. years earlier, he had his followers drop a bomb on a Japanese court house killing the judge presiding over his court case. This guy is a nut.
At any rate, he convince 3 of his followers to enter the Tokyo subway in 5 different locations at morning rush hour with guess what.... SARIN GAS. The gas killed twelve people and injuring some six thousand...
That might not sound like a lot of deaths, thank God, but many of the 6000 injuries were life threatening. The cult followers pulled off their attacks by putting pure sarin in paper bags (a small brown bag like you'd send your child to school with for lunch), ONE BAG PER FOLLOWER, and then they puntured the bag with the point of their umbrella and left before the subway pulled out.
All it took was a tiny amount ot kill and maim people. Stockpiles are irrelevant. There don't need to be stock piles to kill a lot of people. Saddam didn't have stockpiles when he killed almost 100,000 Kurds with nerve gas.... i.e., SARIN.
Intent means everything, even in a court of law. Did Saddam have ready to go WMD, or where they simply the ingredients? It really didn't matter. He already showed that he could make and use the materials. THAT is what matters.
As I described in my post, "Bush Lied" came about around Nov. 2003 when it APPEARED the intellegence he reported in the 2003 State of the Union address was faulty. Opponents claimed that Pres. Bush intentionally lied when he stated these 16 words:
"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa ."
If people refer to Bush as a liar because no stockpiles were found, that just proves the stupidity of the sentiment. Of course he didn't lie anyway, even if he WERE wrong, because he was quoting an intellegence source about the inquiry by Saddam to Niger. It'd be like me quoting the weather man's prediction that it'll rain and upon the sunniness of the day, being called a Liar. Stupid.
Also, Silke, it is believed that the President has been slow to release these tapes out of discreteness. As I said in my original post, Russia and France are up to their eyeballs in this and the implications will be hugely embarrassing to them. Pres. Bush, being a class act, probably wished to not humiliate our odd allies.
"This may look like a small point, did Bush lie, compared with Saddam's obvious inadequacies and deluded ambitions... but I can't approve of my country lying about why we go to war. That's one of those moral non-negotiables."
Bush did lie COMPARED with Saddam's obvious inadequacies and deluded ambitions?? What's that supposed to mean? That because Saddam MAY HAVE LIED (which it's been revealed now that he didn't lie when he boasted about having WMD and pursuing a program) that by association Bush lied? Saddam lied to the U.N. about having WMD, but then he also said he'd use his WMD on US troops in Kuwait as they entered Iraq. So.... Bush is a liar?
There was no lie. Your country, i.e., Tony Blair, didn't lie, either. While I dislike Blair's social policies, he's a very gutsy convicted man (pretty sexy, too) and he didn't LIE about why he took Brit to war. He was very open and honest about it.
The alleged lie is in the exaggeration of the intelligence prior to invasion. see eg. the 45 minute claim.
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page271.asp
and some contemporary commentary (from 2002)
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DA63.htm
We must be talking about two different things. The dossiers you refer to and the 48,000 hours (or boxes?) of tapes have largely yet to even be translated. The intel Bush/Blair had pre-war was indeed extensive; the revelations Amy and I are referring to are not even exploited yet. We have just heard of the tip of the iceberg; Saddam's own voice issuing orders to deceive weapons inspectors and conserve his stockpile of WMD, among other revealtions already disclosed with thousands of hours still untranslated.
Perhaps it's time to ask some new questions. In view of this new evidence, what trust can we place in the MSM and national Democrats in the future, especially after their false claims and dishonorable actions of the last few years? Might the Democrats win a Pyrrhic victory in '06 and '08, and what would that portend for the future of the country?
Trackbacks not working this morning...sigh. We referenced this very well-written post over at our place. You rock.
:)
DP
1) "Let’s assume for one minute that Saddam did have WMD’s."
Let's ASSUME Saddam DID have WMDs? It'd be easier to assume he didn't. We know for a fact he DID have them. As I laid out painstakingly some entries above, it only takes a small bag full of sarin gas punctured by the tip of an umbrella to kill thousands of people. He didn't need to have stockpiles of missiles lying around. Literally, a pinch'll do ya.
2) "Do you find it amazing that he was responsible enough not to use them? I mean this guy is Saddam Hussein! He’s bad! He had weapons, but nicely choose no to use them???"
If you read through the documents that have been released thus far and rely upon the testimony of former Iraqi scientists who helped with the development of Saddam's nuclear weaponry, as well as his top officials in the former Iraqi military (like GEN Sada), you'll find that he planned to have WMD up and ready by 2005. I said in my original entry:
***********************************************
Khidhir Hamza, the highest-ranking Iraqi scientist ever to defect and live to tell about it:
Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. The nuclear program is his primary weapon, and that would give him the ability to use the biological and chemical better. According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window (actually, he’s being careful right now), will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons. Now he’s using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he’ll use them more aggressively then. There could also be the angle of him using nuclear weapons through surrogates also, if he can achieve it.
***********************************************
Meg, Saddam was too busy hiding his elements/chemicals/agents from the U.N. inspectors, as documented by his own voice in the release of the tapes, that compiling them was his secondary objective.
3) "Not only that, he gave them to Syria (who sided with Iran in the Iraq-Iran war)! Amazing he would entrust his hostile neighbor with WMD’s and leave himself open for our attack."
Meg, aside from the fact that Syria's siding with Iran was minimal (no military support, etc.), the US once sided with the Taliban in Afghanistan against Russia. THINGS CHANGE. Arab nations will make deals with whoever will benefit them and they do not trust each other. This is nothing new.
Syria was not a "hostile neighbor" to Iraq. They were "allies at that time" as they are described and shut down a pipeline that ran through Syria into Iraq.
George Tenet (former CIA director) said of Syria, "Damascus has an active CW (chemical weapon) development and testing program that relies on foreign suppliers for key controlled chemicals suitable for producing CW." No offense, but I trust George Tenet, Ariel Sharon, VP Cheney, GEN Sada,and Khidhir Hamza over your personal conclusions.
So did he have them or not? You can't claim he had them and then claim that he planned to get them in 2005.
Even Bush has admitted that weapons were not found, and he hasn't come out to prove himself "vindicated" by this "evidence." Why do you think that is? Wait, let me guess, the liberal media wont give him an interview?
Every neighbor was hostile to Iraq. No one trusted Saddam. Just because Syria joined Iraq in it's dealings with us, didn't make them friends.
Yep, things sure do change. For instance, the justification for this war has changed several times.
Perhaps I wasn't clear: yes, Saddam had them and yes he planned on having the final version by 2005. He had the components by admission of the sources I cited (including from his own lips) but they don't come "assembled". That's what you're finding confusing.
Not true. Pres. Bush is the one, if you read my article, who signed the release of these tapes to the public. What had been translated was kept private until now. Meg, you haven't read the article. This is from my original post:
*********************************
Also, IN this must see interview with Bill O’Reilly, LT GEN Tom McInerney described the tapes on the Fox News Channel, February 21, 2006, and why the Bush administration has not flaunted the tapes publicly:
"Russia, France & China were probably helping the Iraqis with precursors and other materials. They wouldn't want that because they’re 3 of the 5 permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and they're looking at the overall war on terror and they’re going to need their help in the future."
In other words, President Bush is too much of a gentleman to embarrass and humiliate ‘allies’ like Russia and France, despite the assertion from former Iraqi generals and officials close to Saddam claim Russia was key in the removal of WMD from Iraq to Syria.
*********************************
It's that simple, plus the fact that he has a country to run and a war to oversee. This is not Bill Clinton who's sole purpose in life was making himself appear better to the public.
I don't claim that Syria was a friend of Iraq, but that doesn't mean for their own purposes they wouldn't use Saddam's materials for their own purposes: money, defense, whatever. It's that simple.
Really? How has the justification for this war changed? It's remained the same since day one: to disarm Saddam and liberate Iraqis. Mission accomplished. I challenge you to show how the "justification has changed." It hasn't.
No, liberal interpretation of Bush's stance has changes several times. They did have WMD, as I have pointed out in my above comment, such as enriched uranium, chemical weapons agents, and chemical warheads. To liberals it would seem, war is treated the same way killing a lioness is treated on safari. You can shoot them AFTER they rip your arm off, not before.
Amy, The Bush administration is "too gentile" to explain to this country that we really did have a reason to go to this war? That's really absurd. Maybe he realizes, as most experts do, that the tapes don’t prove there were WMD’s or their “parts” when we invaded Iraq.
Charles Duelfer, who led the official U.S. search for WMD after the war, says the tapes show extensive deception but don't prove that weapons were still hidden in Iraq at the time of the war in 2003. "What they do is support the conclusion in the report, which we made in the last couple of years, that the regime had the intention of building and rebuilding weapons of mass destruction, when circumstances permitted."
When the President was asked rather directly about getting WMD wrong, here is what he said: (Click on the first link to the Q&A)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5290911
Is he covering up his "exoneration" also???
Nonetheless, it is well known that the 45 minute claim rested on a single dubious source, and was overemphasized (it should never have applied to WMD, only conventional tactical weapons). But that is just one example... (and why should the Brits have resorted to it if there was strong evidence they could have used, as you suggest the Americans had?)
I never said Bush was "too gentile to explain to this country that we really did have a reason to go to war". President Bush has been explaining continuously since '02 the reasons for going into Iraq. I could link you to State of the Union addresses, speeches, summits and news conferences, but if you scroll through my past entires it's all there. There's no need for me to keep repeating myself.
I said Pres. Bush is too much a gentleman to expose Russia's role in the WMD removal. US LT GEN McInerney said the same thing on February 21, 2006, and why the Bush administration has not flaunted the tapes publicly:
"Russia, France & China were probably helping the Iraqis with precursors and other materials. They wouldn’t want that because they’re 3 of the 5 permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and they’re looking at the overall war on terror and they’re going to need their help in the future."
Russia and Germany are up to their eyeballs in scandal with the U.N. Food for Oil debacle and Russian diplomats made visits to Saddam 3 weeks before the war began. The transcripts we're now receiving tell of Russian aide to transfer WMD to Syria, as well as to stonewall the US into giving inspections more time. They are now quasi-allies on the War on Terror.
If you want to tell yourself that tapes of Saddam describing his development of NUCLEAR AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS are inconclusive, knock yourself out. If you want to convince yourself that Saddam didn't have sarin and other agents to make WMD even though he laboriously goes over how to hide these agents from the U.N. inspectors, be my guest. That's a stain on the integrity of anyone who chooses to keep their head in the sand.
As for Charles Duelfer, can you say Hans Blix? Joe Wilson? In 2004 Duelfer said Iraq didn't have WMD and now he's saying the tapes aren't conclusive? In the face of evidence at he's changing his tune, which is more than I can say for most liberals. Perhaps that quote you issued came out before more Saddam tapes were released but Saddam talked extensively about his agents and how to shuffle them from warehouse to warehouse to avoid being caught.