Dick Morris: Pushing Condi

Bush really blew it with the handling of the WMD's. True, most intel services believed Saddam had the stuff, but think about the situation. Saddam is not the sharpest knife in the drawer as it is, but it does not take a genius to figure this one out.

Bush: We know you have WMD's, and if you don't account for them in 6 months, we are going to come in and arrest you!

Thats like detective bob finding a fencing operation and giving them ample time to dump stolen merchandise prior to serving the warrant.
 
Yes, the best strategy for catchin SH with his proverbial pants down would have been a sneak attack without warning....

Hmmm.... let's see... who was that again that resisted a war every flipping step of the way and gave SH years to dispose of his weapons programs....?

Could it be the flipping .... LEFT!?
 
Any Republican may be in serious trouble in the war is a flop by 2008. An architect of the war is especially at risk.

However, Bush only has 2% of the black vote now and with Miers is looking stupider and stupider. I might think that someone disassociated with him would be a better candidate.

I also don't think it will be Hillary. Toe-sucker Morris is just trying to make a buck.
 
It's more than likely just politics, in that her current position was the payoff for taking the fall on the bogus WMDs and bogus links to terrorism, but she did get slammed for being the one who gave the President this "misinformation." As far as all the intelligence agencies claiming WMDs prior to invasion, the only worldwide intelligence organization in the US that I am familiar with is the CIA, and they said more than once that there were no weapons. If our satellites can read a license plate from space, don't you think we would know if they were there or not? The weapons inspectors said the same thing, time and again, only to be quickly replaced, hopefully by someone who would give the answer everyone was looking for. Face facts, people. There were no weapons. No links to terrorism. Yet "Condi" is on record as advising the public and the President that they did exist. I'm not saying it is not just "part of the game." I get that. But if you are basing your vote and the fate of this country on someone's record, how can you ignore the facts? That is "the point" to this "criticism."

A lot of people, including Kerry, believed Iraq had (or probably had) WMDs before the war.

Is there a point to this?
 
Yes. The point is that various people are complaining that Condi supported the war, but don't offer any alternative Republican candidates who wouldn't have done the same thing in her position.
 
TX RGR---You need to do a little more reading on your own and not repeat Liberal bias. There IS NO dispute that he had WMD's and links to terrorists--the question at the time was did he still have them and if not what did he do with them. He would not reply or allow inspectors into certain areas, thus we had to rely on our own Intelligence as well as England, Pakistan, and many others. Here's something you might want to read:

April 28, 2004

Saddam's WMD Have Been Found (Casey)

According to InsightMag.com, that's exactly what has happened. Some extracts from the article:

'The Iraq Survey Group (ISG), whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, has found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official tells Insight. "There is a long list of charges made by the U.S. that have been confirmed, but none of this seems to mean anything because the weapons that were unaccounted for by the United Nations remain unaccounted for."'

(further excerpts)

'When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news. But when he detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence last October, few took notice. '

'In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer, revealed that the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad, which International Atomic Energy Agency spokesman Mark Gwozdecky acknowledged to Insight had been intended for "a clandestine nuclear-weapons program."

In taking apart Iraq's clandestine procurement network, Duelfer said his investigators had discovered that "the primary source of illicit financing for this system was oil smuggling conducted through government-to-government protocols negotiated with neighboring countries [and] from kickback payments made on contracts set up through the U.N. oil-for-food program" .' (emphasis added)

According to retired U.S. Army officer Douglas Hanson, one of the reasons for the media silence was that the stockpiles strongly resemble pesticides. '"Pesticides are the key elements in the chemical-agent arena," Hanson says. "In fact, the general pesticide chemical formula (organophosphate) is the 'grandfather' of modern-day nerve agents."'

'Caches of "commercial and agricultural" chemicals don't match the expectation of "stockpiles" of chemical weapons. But, in fact, that is precisely what they are. "At a very minimum," Hanson tells Insight, "they were storing the precursors to restart a chemical-warfare program very quickly." Kay and Duelfer came to a similar conclusion, telling Congress under oath that Saddam had built new facilities and stockpiled the materials to relaunch production of chemical and biological weapons at a moment's notice.'

Read the whole thing. Hat tip to Ocean Guy for the original link.


UPDATE: InsightMag.com is also reporting that there are Iraqi weapons in Syria:

'On Dec. 24, 2002, nearly three months before fighting in Iraq began, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon accused Saddam Hussein's regime of transferring key materials for his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs to Syria in convoys of 18-wheel trucks to hide them from U.N. weapons inspectors. "There is information we are verifying, but we are certain that Iraq has recently moved chemical or biological weapons into Syria," Sharon told Channel Two television in Israel.

Before talking about this on Israeli television, Sharon gave detailed information to the Bush White House on what Israel knew and what it suspected. Insight has learned, however, that once the information was handed over to the U.S. intelligence community, officials at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) swept it aside as lacking credibility.'

'So are Saddam's WMD stockpiles in Syria? When Insight asked the CIA if it was investigating these and other reports, a spokesman acknowledged there was "some evidence that way" and that the United States was "looking at all types of possibilities," but vigorously discouraged further inquiries. Administration officials tell Insight that the refusal to report on Syria's complicity with Saddam's regime stems from a "pro-Syria bias in the State Department and some elements of the intelligence community, whose threshold for evidence on Syria is suspiciously high."'

Double Hat tip to Ocean Guy
 
I seem to remember Colin Powell being the lone voice in the wilderness against the war in Iraq. Even he drank from the poison cup that was being passed around. There is much dissent among CIA people about this information from the operative called Curve Ball.......

Colin Powell asked the CIA Director in person if he stood behind this assesment. The question is was the information from the CIA factual or did the CIA Director give the president what he wanted to start a war?

The man handpicked to lead the search for WMD by Bush even came up with nothing.....

There is no proof that strategic WMDs ever existed. I personally defended Bush for a long time over the WMDs. Sometimes you have to give up blind loyalty and recognize the facts.
 
Last edited:
ther is no proof that strategic WMDs ever existed




You've got to b e kidding right? We all knew he already had them, the ? was what did he do with them. Do you remember the guy who defected who actually ran his WMD's. He laid out in detail what he had and what he planned on having.
Please people, do a little research on your own and STOP repeating things that you hear from 1 place or another!:(
 
If the WMDs are in Syria and we know it - and we went to war to get them - isn't Bush a bad president as he is doing anything about them?

Since when does he kowtow to the State Department and if he is doing that, again he is a bad president.

The WMDs weren't there - there were three reasons for the war - all have some contribution:

1. Bush has some Freudian crappola going on with his daddy over Gulf I
2. They really did believe there were WMDs as it met their predisposition to go after Saddam. We know that once a group makes a decision, they are immune to all counter evidence.
3. A Neocon theory that the Iraqis would relish American democracy, greet us a liberators and pull together as a Jefferesonian democracy - this would spread across the Middle East.

Trying to excuse the war as the weapons were moved makes Bush even more incompetent has he is doing nothing about the weapons now. Excuse makers have to follow the logic through and they don't.

The only valid reason was #3 - however the execution of the post war planning was so hideous that the Bush Team blew it. If it can be recovered - that's the question that will haunt the GOP and war supporters in 2008.
 
Ms. Rice is a prime candidate because she has the requisite government experience, she is a conservative republican, she is a woman, she is african american.


I'm sorry, this is not a term I recognize. Are you saying that she's "black"?

Oh.

I didn't know she was born in Africa, though.


:rolleyes:


-blackmind
 
MOW--You are the one who needs to do his own reading, and put aside the liberal smear tactics. It's beneath you. You can start by reading the article you submitted--it's nothing but accusations and what has been construed as evidence of a "plan." A plan or an accusation does not a WMD make. Nor does it create links to terrorism by proxy. Like I said, we have the technology available to us to readily observe anything Sadaam is doing. If they were there, we would know it. Obviously, they were not. But let's not kid ourselves. The point was never whether the man had nukes or played golf with Bin Laden. The point was the US or "whomever" got their "war." You seem like a person of reasonable intelligence. I'm sure you've figured all of this out by now.
 
MOW, Bush said to the people of the United States that Hussien had weapons capable of attacking the US...... There is a difference between strategic and tactical weapons.

In Bush's speech to go to war he said we couldnt wait for the "smoking gun" a nuclear cloud over America.
 
we have the technology available to us to readily observe anything Sadaam is doing. If they were there, we would know it.

I digress, like those above, but this statement is just beyond belief. If we, the Germans, French, Russians and the English had such technology, these countries would not have thought it possible for Saddam to have WMDs. In fact, many of his Generals seemed to have assumed that they had them. If we had such amazing technology, we wouldn't be having such a tough time figuring out what is going on inside of North Korea, or Iran. Our lack of reliable warm body intelligence has been our weakness. Technology can't do the job by itself.

Now, I would agree that as of today, we do have the technology to fully monitor Saddam, boxers and all.

How does all of this relate to Dick Morris?
 
There is no proof that strategic WMDs ever existed.
You mean, besides the 60,000 dead kurds and the 100,000+ dead Iranians killed by Saddam's WMD?

Exactly how many have to die before it's "proven" to you?
 
Back
Top