February 28, 2004

But Bush lied to us

Posted by Scott at 11:16 PM

Timothy - Michelle and I drove Timothy in to the pediatric clinic in Nashua this evening. He still had a temperature approaching 103°F but the doctor confirmed it is just a virus that has to work its way through his system. Lots of rest and keep up with the fluids -- the usual advice but nothing to get worried about unless symptoms change for the worse. It's been a few days now. Hopefully he gets over it soon. He so lethargic you can't help but feel pity for him. “Turbo Timbo” just doesn't seem to fit him these days.

The Passion - A question for some of the movie critics: Why is it okay for a Jewish Director, Stephen Spielberg, to use mind-numbingly brutal violence in the movie "Schindler's List" to depict what happened during the Holocaust, but it's not okay for Mel Gibson, a Catholic director, to use such violence to depict what the Gospels record happened during the passion of Christ?

WMD's - I rarely like to delve into Democrats vs Republican politics online because I find both parties extremely flawed. However, I'm getting really tired of the politics of "Bush lied". Honest debate about Iraq is fine. But can we please stop the "hey George, where are the WMD's?" and "he lied to us" and "he cherry picked intelligence reports to draw the conclusions he wanted" rhetoric?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

Comments

My question is how can US intelligence be so completely wrong? I may be incorrect but I beleive it's pretty much a fact that there are no WMD's in Iraq, even the President has made references to that. That being the case how does the most powerful country in the world with supposedly the most advanced technology get shown to be so inadequate? No question Saddam (we're on a first name basis) needed to be ousted but now US intelligence looks impotent and it will take a long time to rebuild that reputation with the rest of the world. As I read that I realized it sounded unpatriotic. I don't want to seem like I'm US bashing, I'm not trying to, but this seems like a bigger issue to me than 'Bush lied'.

Tom

Posted by: Tom at February 29, 2004 10:46 AM

No doubt about that. I just resented the message that _Bush_ deceived us -- as if he were contriving this. How we were so wrong is a different and more important question. Perhaps the weapons were moved. Perhaps destroyed in secret. Perhaps Saddam's minions were lying to him to save their own skins. The intelligence failures are more important than 'Bush lied' but is less political so the media (and Bush's opponents) don't spin it that way.

As I said, I'm not a cheerleader for George. But the message that Saddam was working on WMD's was a pretty broad based belief.

I just wanted to report that lil' Timbo woke this morning with a temperature of ~98.5F. He also seems to be regaining some of his energy so things are looking better. Thanks to everyone for their prayers for a speedy recovery.

Posted by: Scott at February 29, 2004 11:13 AM