digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Bush ‘Still Believed Saddam Possessed WMD’ In April 2006

thinkprogress.org — "Though it was not the sort of thing one could say publicly anymore, the president still believed that Saddam had possessed weapons of mass destruction. He repeated this conviction to Andy Card all the way up until Card ’s departure in April 2006, almost exactly three years after the Caoalition had begun its fruitless search for WMDs."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Insightful, on 10/10/2007, -12/+20Not surprising, see page 458 of the Draper book where Bush repeated his conviction of existence of Tooth Fairy to George Bush senior all the way until his departure for the White House in 2001.

    To this day, he is still continuing his fruitless search of the WMD and the TF.
    • jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -13/+2You've read it already? I thought it came out yesterday.
  • iching, on 10/10/2007, -12/+26He is delusional as was another tyrant at the end of his dictatorship who also suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This delusion about no WMD's reinforces his narcissistic sociopathic disorder that by denying reality, he is proven right. We have a problem Houston.
  • toddcat, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11Seriously, can't we invoke the 25th Amendment? I've read @ consortiumnews.com the analysis of a shrink who identifies all the familiar symptoms. This man is absolutely delusional. And yeah, I know Cheney would be the (official) Prez but we gotta do somethin
  • bluephoenix, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5The democratic revolution starts with the people alone. Massachusetts Attorney General just certified an amendment today I believe that is the starting point for the return to self governance in MA anyway. www.thepeoplealone.org is the website. Also, if anyone's interested we're going to need over 60,000 signatures for this to go through....please help out if you can..I promise this isn't meant as spam, I think it's a worthy cause.
  • kenvsryu, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16He still puts out cookies and milk on Christmas eve.
    • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2That's not the problem. The problem is when they aren't consumed the next morning, he thinks Santa was kidnapped by Ahmadinejad so that Rudolf's nose can be part of a nuclear program.
  • aikimann, on 10/10/2007, -13/+22Unfortunately, it's impossible to prove a negative. So, we'll never know whether or he had WMD and got rid of them, or never had them to begin with.

    (Despite this statement being impartial and true, it will probably be interpreted as right-wing propaganda and dugg down)
    • iching, on 10/10/2007, -10/+8It is possible to prove a negative in mathematics, however your inference that we will never know ***** is *****.
      • jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8Prove that there are no unicorns living beneath the surface of Mars.
        • StaticThunder, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7In many cases, once one has looked hard enough, and SHOULD have by now found a unicorn had they been there, not finding one is acceptable as proof.

          Its a debated area of logic, but when one walks in a room the size of a closet and can't find an elephant, you have for all practical purposes proved there is no elephant there.
          • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You've covered the entire set there though. It is possible to prove something not to exist if you can account for every element in the set.
        • adooga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to prove that there are unicorns there? You make the assertion, you prove it - just like Bush must - and can't - because he's full of ***** - just like you.
        • spartacus409, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0But here are strange creatures living in jcm's brain. There is ample proof of that
    • kurttrail, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Actually, it is quite well documented that Saddam did have WMDs and the capability to produce them up until around 1996, though his although the Gulf War had dramatically degraded both stockpile and capability.
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8This isn't so ridiculous. I think Bush figured going in that Saddam had to have *some* WMDs somewhere, even if most of the intel said he probably didn't. Most people did. It's actually somewhat surprising that there were zero--none--that we found, other than some old expired nerve gas. It does look like there weren't any after all, but obviously this is somewhat like a scientific theory--it's accurate until something proves it wrong.
    • Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You can't prove that something doesn't exist indefinitely, but you can damn well be sure that a specific item is not in a specific place during a specific time period. Think about the last time you lost your car keys. You probably looked in the last place you remember putting them. Maybe you did not see them there. You kept looking and moved some stuff around to make sure it wasn't hiding under anything, but you still don't see them. Do you then look somewhere else and ask people if they moved them or do you keep staring at that spot because you know they were there and you can't prove that they are not there for sure? How long would you keep staring at that spot before you come to the realization that they are not there? Now Iraq is a lot bigger than a kitchen table, but WMDs are a lot easier to find than car keys. Bush has been staring at that same spot looking for the same thing for years now with no evidence what he was looking for is there or that it had been moved. He even ignored evidence that said that it wasn't there. Its about time he gets the hint that they are not there and they were not there when we invaded. Now if we could only get someone to hide Bush's car keys, the word might be a safer place.
  • Napoleone, on 10/10/2007, -18/+19I, for one, believe he knew from the very get there were no WMD's in Iraq. This is a war for profit, sustained by propaganda and outright lies.
    • Kajun, on 10/10/2007, -6/+9Have you not seen the proof that he did have WMD's that he used on people who lived in his own country? Where they went when we invaded is the question. Im sure they will surface somewhere sooner or later.
      • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5"Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there." - George W. Bush
        • Kajun, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Im not for Bush or the war but to think that he used them and then just never made or possessed others is stupid. They were there and now they are in a bordering country. He may have not had "the weapons that our intelligence believed were there" but I gurantee he had them right up to the time he allowed the teams to come in and look for them. If he didnt why would he not let them come look? Why did he have to play the shell game like he did?
        • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5"to think that he used them and then just never made or possessed others is stupid."

          Thats it, then. The international intelligence community is stupid, and you alone are smart. QED.
        • Kajun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0http://mondediplo.com/1998/03/04iraqkn

          Guess so.
        • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4ABC Nightline reported the following on June 9, 1992: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]" and “Reagan/Bush administrations permitted — and frequently encouraged — the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.”
        • Kajun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Yea? We give money and aid to alot of countries that could very easily become enemies.We should stop I agree.
        • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4my point is the situation was different a decade ago - there is RECENT intelligence which proves Saddam had no weapons programs or stockpiles post-1996
        • Kajun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I appreciate your point of view. As stated before...I do not support Bush or the war. As a matter of fact I think this presidency will go down as one of the worst in history.

          I just choose to believe that the french and one of Sadams "inner circle" cannot be trusted on this. I sincerely believe that he had them at one time and had no reason to fear their possession until it became apparent that the UN was coming looking for them. There were hidden pipelines to bypass the oil embargos....could there also have been hidden ways to move WMD's? I dont think that he ever had the nuclear weapons programs that we were lead to believe he had but I have no doubt that he had at least some WMD's.
      • adooga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Surely you meant to say " where they went during months of inspections before we invaded".
        • Kajun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes thats what I meant :)

          Im sure as soon as it became evident that the sights were on him, he began the planning to move/hide them.
      • Napoleone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The CIA toppled Iran's secular, democratic government in the year 1953, as a favor to the British (oil interests). They then installed the Shah; a very oppressive dictator. In 1979 the Shah became ill and at the behest of David Rockefeller he was brought to the U.S. to receive urgent medical treatment. The Islamic Revolution took the chance to make their move, and quickly and peacefully took power in virtually bloodless coup. The people of Iran, having lived under an oppressive ruler, had little idea what they were in for. In fact, many people at the time vociferously objected even of their new leaders.

        The supreme leader of the Islamic revolution was the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In retaliation for what the U.S. had done to their country in 1953, an element of the Revolution took over the U.S. embassy in Iran and took some 72 hostages. The Ayatollah did not object.

        Meanwhile, Iraq's power hungry dictator, Saddam Hussein, decided to take advantage of the social chaos happening in Iran, and decided to invade it. The U.S. did not object to Saddam's war of aggression (as they did when it was Kuwait,) because they now saw Iran as a threat to their oil interests. The U.S. government went on to assist Iraq by selling it WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION. Namely, mustard gas, anthrax, and other poisons.

        Saddam Hussein then used these WMD's on dozens of thousands of Iranian forces and on an uncooperative sect of his own population called the Kurds. The U.S., being a party to Saddam's crimes, did not object.

        In 1988, Iraq and Iran called it a stalemate, and ended the war. In 1990, Saddam attempted an all out invasion of Kuwait. Saudi Arabia, a financial ally of the United States felt it was next on his hit list, thus, they enlisted the help of the United Nations, and in particular, that of the U.S. The Gulf War was fought, not in defense of Kuwait, but for the sake of stability in the global oil market; as a toppled Saudi Arabia would have given Saddam's regime incredible wealth and power.

        Saddam Hussein wasn't removed from power, because his abuses weren't as offensive as his ambitions. So long as he was kept contained, everything would be fine. WMD's inspectors spent the first half of the 1990's seeing to it that all the WMD's the U.S. had given to Iraq were disposed of. Eventually, Saddam kicked them out.

        Fast forward to 2002-03', Bush seeks to remove the threat of WMD's from Iraq; as he has irrefutable, rock solid, beyond all doubt, slam-dunk, we know exactly where it is, proof that Saddam still has such weapons. The U.N. sends HUNDREDS of WMD inspectors into Iraq to verify Bush's claims. They found nothing. They then asked Bush to share his intelligence information, so that they could visit the specific sites Bush cited as evidence, but Bush refused to share it.

        Bush said we had to depose Saddam to eliminate its WMD stockpiles: Nothing showed up.
        Bush said we were in Iraq to bring democracy: The democracy malfunctioned and became a civil war.
        Bush said we were in Iraq to fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq: A force estimated by the various intelligence agencies to be less than 12,00 men strong, and composed mostly of foreigners who'd come into the country only AFTER our invasion of it.
        Bush said we were in Iraq to stabilize the country for a political reconciliation: The Iraqi government then goes on a 2 month vacation instead.
        Bush then shifts focus, and says Iran is interfering with the internal affairs of Iraq (ironic?). Actively setting the stage for war with them.

        2007: Kajun manages to stay woefully misinformed about the WMD issue in Iraq.

        Is there any hope in this world?
    • nrtikman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Gen George Sada on Jon Stewart Show:
      GENERAL GEORGES SADA: Well let me tell you, it was not misunderstanding between the cultures, but t was the Saddam intentions and Saddam wanted to rule that part of the world. He was always going to go for weapons and of course he had weapons of mass destruction that he had managed to hide and to mislead the United Nations countries.
      STEWART: This is obviously the most controversial part of the book. In it you say that right before the invasion of Iraq Saddam had his weapons of mass destruction taken to Syria.
      SADA: That’s true. He had them there before Americans came and liberated the country. The weapons were transported to Syria by air and by ground.
      STEWART: That would seemingly get the Bush administration off the giant hook that it appears to be on. Why wouldn’t they pursue that line of evidence? Or have they? It seems like for us it would be hard to understand that that really happened. Given that the whole world was looking for those.
      SADA: I am sure in the coming days the authorities are going to tell the public and tell all Americans after they will have all the evidence in their hands and they can verify everything to the Americans.
      STEWART: You still feel, now this is first-hand knowledge of yours? Somebody told you this? You’ve seen it in documents? You’ve seen it on video.
      SADA: Oh yes, the weapons of mass destruction I have seen them myself because you see I was the number two man in the air force. Then I know how they were used against our nation. Of course—
      STEWART: But in the later ‘90s after they thought they had rid them of it, you still saw them.
      SADA: After the ‘90s they were there. How I knew they were there, after they were transported the pilots who transported they told me.
      STEWART: The guys that flew them …
      SADA: The guys who were responsible.
      STEWART: How do you fly a weapon? Isn’t that a large thing or do you put it….
      SADA: No. They are raw materials; some of them are like barrels, yellow barrels, of course, with skulls and cross bones on them.
      • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Why is it that the most intelligent, interesting, and important interviews come out of a comedy show? *sigh*

        (I'm not putting down the Daily Show, as I love it. I'm just saying...)
      • Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4And the date of that interview was March 22, 2006. A lot of days have come and gone... yet no evidence that the WMDs were moved. What a coincidence.
        • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3And note that Sada was quite well retired by the time. He hadn't been the "the number two man in the air force" for a long time when he allegedly saw these things.
  • JudgeDreddEsq, on 10/10/2007, -13/+8Require drug testing for all politicians and most of our problems will be solved.
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Sadly, none of those requirements were put in the Constitution. The founding fathers foolishly relied on the "free market" to prevent dumbasses from being elected.

      See? SEE?! This is what happens when you think "people couldn't possibly be THAT stupid!"
      • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Actually they relied upon the Constitution itself. If it was upheld then Bush couldn't do this.
      • Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3True, except 'the people' don't elect presidents. The electoral college does.
  • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -7/+21This needs to be on the front page at the same time as "Bush knew there were no WMD in 2002"
    http://digg.com/politics/Bush_knew_Saddam_had_no_weapons_of_mass_destruction
    Heads will be exploding from the cognitive dissonance.
    • therightside, on 10/10/2007, -12/+11Diggers cant get their lies straight.
      • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -10/+10 more like "Bush can't get his lies straight"
        • fleischner, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6Ever consider the possibility that you're an idiot? You should start from that premise and work backwards.
        • FatherVic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1wow.... good one. Stay up all night thinking it up?
    • SeekerDarksteel, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11But...but...Digg TOLD me Bush knew! Now they tell me Bush DIDN'T!

      TELL ME WHAT TO BELIEVE, DIGG! TELL ME WHAT TO BELIEVE!
      • catsaregrey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I WANT TO HABEEB
      • FatherVic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Come on... You know as well as I do that truth doesn't matter..... Just what move on .org and digglibs say.
  • satanatnmtedu, on 10/10/2007, -9/+11Much of America already lets belief trump rational analysis. So, this is not surprising.
    • 2612, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4How about not speaking for "much of America" - thanks.
    • vSuperLuminal, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3No kidding. Just think about all the dumb asses who believe in Global Warming. It is truly amazing and sad.
    • FatherVic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Thanks for letting me know what I think.
  • mtjohnson, on 10/10/2007, -16/+8More like Bush was saying:

    Dear jaysus, if you use your magic jaysus powers to plant some a those WMD in irak, I promise ta never drink 'er snort coke again, I'll never to make fun a those I'm bout to execute on death row, and I'll never start a 'nother war with a country that don't threaten us.

    (Heh-heh, hope he dudn't know i got my fingers crossed).
  • deathproof, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5He knew there were no WMDS he is just covering his ass for going to war to inflict a police state on us JEEEEZ
  • superfusion, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1Until Bush, when your ex girlfriend from Grade 9 continues to think you're getting back together, and you're both 25, you'd be hard pressed to look at her and think, "presidential material."
  • StaticThunder, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Its like OJ still searching for the true killer.
  • RealHyperX, on 10/10/2007, -17/+17Glad this story makes it to front pages in 10 seconds flat, but the story about Germany catching Islamists that were going to blow up American targets is no where to be found... .***** libtards!
    • StaticThunder, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Coward.
      • chrissandvick, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I always love the irony when an anonymous coward insults somebodies courage. "StaticThunder" how macho...
        • StaticThunder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2He's a ***** yellow elephant who goes around throwing libtard bombs. Its not an insult, its the truth. Welcome to the 101st keyboard brigade, here is your diaper.
          • FatherVic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1wow... your arguments are so well thought out and impossible to refute. You have one... this time....
    • jacquesm, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9it's all over the news, why repeat it here ? Besides, it doesn't really prove anything other than that every country has their nutjobs, and that we can deal with them with good police work, no need to call in the military.
      • RealHyperX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1So is Senator Craig - yet there are about 20 front page stories on him on DIGG. Hmmm interesting. Next argument.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5It's America's fault they're attacking us anyway, it's not news at all.
    • StaticThunder, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Its a nonstory. Of course we are being attacked. Look what we've done to the world. Do you also want us to put up a story about soldiers being killed in Iraq every day? Where are all those stories?

      The yellow elephant brigade has enough supporters. If we're in so much danger from Islamists, and we're '***** libtards' go sign up and fight instead of calling for everyone else to publicise the danger they pose.

      The "Islamists" pose far less of a danger than Bush and his ilk. Why some of us are so frightened of small groups of uneducated men with homebrew explosives when you are in more danger from the economy collapsing due to overborrowing from China I have no idea.
      • robisfunky, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4 Just wait til a bomb blows up near you or a loved one. All of a sudden you'll be a LOT less worried about economics with China.
        • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1From a purely statistical perspective, The US economy vs. China (and it's toys) is likely to have a lot more to do with killing or maiming loved ones than any bomb on a streetcorner.

          In the last ten years more people in the US have died from choking on non-food items than have from terrorism.
        • zengonzo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Unless it were China dropping that bomb ..
        • StaticThunder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Just wait til your loved one gets hit by a drunk driver because you couldn't afford a proper police department and substance abuse programs. Thats a lot ***** more likely than an Islamist extremist singling out your coffee house to blow up.

          Yet look at how much money we've wasted on securing the mideast from a couple thousand al-qaida members compared to taking care of things at home.

          Not to mention you could stop making more of the idiotic fundies any time you want to.
  • gillilandboy, on 10/10/2007, -13/+17I am going to get dugg down for this but.....I think they did have WMD of there and Saddam got word of it and had them hidden so we couldn't find them or moved out of the country.
    • carabou, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6i second my friend
    • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -6/+9"we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material. [Iraq Survey Group Interim Progress Report, 10/2/03]

      “we’re very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons. … I don’t think they exist.” [Former U.N. inspector David Kay, 1/26/04]

      “The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003.” [Iraq Survey Group Report, 10/7/04]

      "Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."
      -George Bush, 2004
      • robisfunky, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3 The U.N. is not a trustworthy organization. Come on guys. You guys are so bent on hating your own country that you will side with terrorists who already attacked us and have made it plain that they intend to do so again, on an even bigger scale, and side with the U.N. a cesspool of corruption. When the next attack happens, are you guys gonna look to the U.N. to do something?? Just sit around and say "we had it coming"? Insanity.
        • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Ok, discount the quote from the UN inspector. You are left with a quote from the American ISG, and a quote from the President of the United States. If you don't believe those sources, I think you are the one who hates your own country (/sarcasm - that's a ***** stupid thing to say)
        • adooga, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3*****. The UN is as trustworthy as any organization you care to name. "Cesspool of corruption"? Please be serious.
          You slander them only to validate the U.S.'s habit of riding roughshod over the wishes of the international community.
          "Insanity"? Invading Iraq for no good reason was insanity. Defending that decision today is stupidity.
        • robisfunky, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2 Why is it that you are so set on characterizing the U.S. as the evil monster and the rest of the players as victims?? It really is nuts. Read a bit about the poor victim that you think Saddam was. http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr/2002/cdec/irdp.pdf
      • robisfunky, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4 No it is not a ***** stupid thing to say. We KNOW he had WMD's he USED them on his own people. Do you not remember that? Just because he was able to scramble and hide them doesn't mean anything. So as long as you can ditch them when 'inspectors' show up, everything should be peachy? He violated U.N. resolutions 37 times, he invaded Kuwait. Do you think he massacred huge numbers of his own people with lollipops??? Take your tin hat off for a minute and understand who your REAL enemy is. Go commiserate with the terrorists about how evil the U.S. is and see how long it takes for them to chop your fool head off. Wake up man.
        • zengonzo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1We know he had WMDs, we SOLD them to him.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1You can't prove that so therefore he didn't do that. See how much sense that makes?!
      • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Is "you cant prove he didn't do that, so therefore he did do that" any better? Take a guess at which principle the US justice system operates on.
    • spoid_, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Sadam couldn't prove he destroyed them. Should we have taken his word? Remember Sadam backwards is madas
      • Rizzen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I don't think his name backwards really maddas.
      • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3"Should we have taken his word?"

        He said he didn't have any and none were found. George Bush said Saddam had tons and none were found. Who should we trust, the guy who was correct or the guy who wasn't?
        • robisfunky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You don't think it's possible to hide tons on stuff in the middle of the desert? You really find Saddam Hussein trustworthy??? I don't think there are any 'rape rooms' in the White House. 37 U.N. resolutions ignored/violated. This is who you want to trust??? God damn people! You are so drunk on the hate Bush bandwagon that you now trust Saddam Hussein?
          http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr/2002/cdec/irdp.pdf

          • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The "indignation" act is fairly comic after the torture, rape and murder that US military people have inflicted on Iraqi civilians. Spare us your puffed up sanctimony.

            My point is that Saddam Hussein was more truthful than George Bush when it came to the question of WMD. You can disprove that by finding the tons of WMD that George Bush said were there.
        • robisfunky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2 If you think Saddam was some sort of trustworthy good guy, and all you can do is lock your teeth in the WMD bone, I give up. There is A LOT more going on here than WMD silliness. Why are you not even willing to be fair enough to acknowledge that Saddam Hussein was a brutal maniac? It doesn't take much research to understand that much. If you want to hate Bush, that's fine, but the fact that you have blinded yourself to the tyranny and brutality of Saddam and want to characterize him as 'trustworthy', is just crazy. You clearly have lost your grip on reality. I guess it's probably easier that way. "Bush is evil, everybody else is his victim" doesn't require much thought. Oh well. This IS Digg after all.
          • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't care how Saddam acted. I'm not an Iraqi. I only care how the USA acts because I am an American. We invaded them, they never attacked us, remember? What other countries governments do is not my business. It's not the USA's right to send troops into other countries that haven't started a war with us. If you hate some tin-pot dictator, YOU are welcome to go fight them. But leave my tax dollars out of it.
    • robisfunky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@adooga
      "You slander them only to validate the U.S.'s habit of riding roughshod over the wishes of the international community"
      riiiight, Iraq violated U.N. resolutions 37 TIMES...and WE are the ones riding roughshod over the wishes of the International Community. Good grief. You guys are hopeless.
    • ScubaDude1960, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It makes no sense. Saddam had the weapons, but let his country be invaded and taken over rather than use them? Then what's the point of having them? Do you think that he's laughing in his grave? "Ha, ha. At least they didn't find my weapons... I win."
  • billyfalconer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Cheney still tells people that.
  • PNXadmin, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6HEADLINE:Bush ‘Still Believed Saddam Possessed WMD’ In April 2006
    HEADLINE:People still talking about something Bush said a year and a half ago
  • mksmothers, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8Yep, you got dugg down. We offered millions and a free-pass to the United States for ANYONE who could provide solid evidence of their existence. Before you say this is a conspiracy, why did the Chief Inspector (appointed by Bush II) testify to Congress that there was absolutely no evidence of their existence?
  • liquisoft, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12I have and still do believe that Bush is genuinely not a horrible person as many people believe. I just think he's bad at his job and doesn't want anyone to know. So he surrounds himself with people he thinks are his friends; people he can count on to direct him towards the right decisions. But those people are oftentimes not his friends at all. They are usually selfish individuals out to further their causes. Cheney is one such person.

    So Bush gets told certain things by his pals, and he believes them. After all, why would his friends lie to him? Despite evidence to the contrary, Bush still believes Iraq had WMDs, all because he was convinced that they did way back in 2001 and holds onto that belief like most dimwitted people do. What I mean is, many "not too smart" people hold onto beliefs they formed many years prior and are unable to waver from their initially-formed opinions because it means they'll have to adapt to a new way of thinking. These people get set in their ways and sort of go through the motions, much like a robot would. So Bush is just going through the motions of being a post-terrorist attack President, and is unable (or unwilling) to waver from his mode of operations.

    I think if Bush had been surrounded by genuinely intelligent and caring individuals, people who supported the Constitution and were champions of human rights, this administration and our experience over the past 7 years would be far different. But unfortunately for us, Bush is a very poor judge of character and we are paying the price for it.
    • bedamned, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1You are talking as if he is working in a small office and doing some thing that does not effect anyone else or at least any people lives.
      "So Bush gets told certain things by his pals, and he believes them."
      How can you say that, are you one of them who whispers things into that idiots ear. (if he listens to all the ***** thrown in his ear, he really should'nt be a president.)
      Please find a better excuse than that.
      When you are taking decisions that effect the life's of many, its better to do a full investigation or research rather than being a bully and stomping weaker nations.
      Besides if you ever read the news online (why online becuase local news are usually poisoned by politictians) there were several people near him who kept tellin him the facts. But this guy kept ignoring them.
    • pleetonboy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Do you honestly think Bush got to where he is today by being that naive and stupid? The man is a ***** genius in my book. When the dust has settled I think you'll all be scratching your heads when you realize the depth of what he is trying to accomplish during his term. I'm going to trust the guy who has the bigger picture in mind. The one that none of us can understand because we do not understand all the factors in play when these kind of decisions are made.
      • shupy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yeah right. The whole country and all of our government officials, military officials and academics are too dumb to understand the great mind of Bush.
        Bush has never had to work for anything in his life. He is a child of privilege, of average intelligence if that. He was handed the best of everything, the best schools. And when he was "academically challenged" daddy made a big donation to get him into an ivy league school.
        The only thing he has is the power of the Bush family behind him. I doubt he ever makes a single decision. Cheney and the rest of the neocons have been calling the shots. Even if Rove is not in the whitehouse, does anyone believe that Bush is the "decider".
        Bush has no picture in mind, because there isn't much room in there for anything other than his own self interest.
  • morningmatters, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8It's sad but many Americans still believe that Saddam's WMD's had been found and that Saddam did 9/11, today.
    • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1According to US Code, a handgrenade qualifies as a WMD, so it could be that a big chunk of America are actually closet laywers... Or, more likely, just dumb.
      • robisfunky, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1 Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones. When you decide to call fellow Diggers dumb, you should be extra careful not to look dumb yourself by misspelling simple words /'lawyers'.
        • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Congratulations, you found a typo and because of that I r teh dumbzorz.

          Get a life.
  • bedamned, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5He is playing with the peoples lives and sadly lot of americans still support him.
    • 2reflective, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Because they still think 9/11 was carried out by a guy on kidney dialysis and bunch of Saudis who couldn't even fly a small passenger plane.
      Until people understand 9/11 was carried out by criminal elements within the US administration, they will understandably think their country is under attack by millions of would-be terrorist and will be so scared they will go along with anything the government wants. Fear is number one way we are manipulated and controlled.
  • MadN, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Yes, Bush "believed" in Iraqi WMDs; SCOX also still "believes" they own Linux.
    To admit anything else is to confess to their crimes....

    /He also saw it on Faux News...
  • rogueifer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6IIMMMMMPEEEAAAAACCCHHHHH
  • freezeout, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14Bush also believed Jesus told him to invade Iraq and that Brownie was doing a hell of a job
  • TheHamBeast, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6It's hard to take these editorials and the people who digg them seriously. As of right now there is an article in the top ten which says Bush knew there weren't any WMD in Iraq. If you're going to try to discredit Bush then at least do it consistently and save yourself some embarrassment.
    • clnydk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"Knew" and "Saying" and "Telling" (Card) are completely separate things
    • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Its hard to take Hambeast and the people who digg him seriously, when you display a lack of even the most basic comprehension of the subject and sources you are commenting on.
  • Chassit, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5Bush is a delusional psychotic. Anyone who still supports him is either evil or unable to admit to themselves that they screwed up.
  • johneyoung, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Galileo believed the Sun was the center of the solar system.....he was nutty.
    • adooga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Therefore everyone who believes something despite evidence to the contrary is always right?
      yawn
  • papashawn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6also on the front page of digg: "Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction"

    Now I'm no repub, but let's get our stories straight, shall we? You obviously can't have it both ways.
    • adooga, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0I think it's Bush who's trying to have it both ways. He knew from the start they didn't exist but continues to insist they do.
    • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2"Now I'm no repub"

      No right wingers are these days....
    • StaticThunder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Saying they exist when you know they didn't is what some circles call a lie. Thats why 'believe' was in quotes.
  • jomom, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1didnt i just see on cnn that there was 5 nuclear war heads transported from usa east coast to usa west coast?
    CAN WE SAY HYPOCRITE!!!!
  • yfguitarist, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2WTF? Bush haters at least should get their stories straight. I just read an article claiming that Bush knew there were no WMDs. Maybe someone can clarify.
    • redlantern64, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Actually, if you READ that story, it tells you that Bush was given good intelligence that there were no WMDs in Iraq, but he ignored it and chose not to believe it.
    • uu2b, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3He's stupid, and so are you.
  • dupswapdrop, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Come on rapture we need a win for the team.
    P.S. >J.C. please hurry with them porkchops G.B.
  • clnydk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2"Knew", "Telling"(Card), and "Saying" are not the same things; people Say and Tell things everyday which they Knew otherwise, also sometimes called a Lie, or if they can't tell the difference, Delusion.
  • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4It makes no difference whether Saddam had one bio weapon, ten thousand chemical warheads or ten billion thermonuclear devices. Until Iraq attacks the USA, there is no justification to invade Iraq. Invading Iraq was a war crime.
    • chrissandvick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"That's right! Dictators have their rights you know. You can't just overthrow genocidal mass murderers because they are genocidal mass murderers. You have to treat them like they are good citizens. No, when they shoot at your pilots, plot to murder your president, and plan to take over everything they get their hands on, you still have to smile and shake their hands. When you've got thousands dead that you could have prevented by just killing the bastard, then you can meekly ask the UN for the permission to shake your finger at them." /sarcasm Ah the typical America hater, statists hiding in an internationalists skin.
      • StaticThunder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If they had murdered Clinton I'm sure you would have been crying your eyes out. Save your rhetoric, fascist scum. How about the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians. I'm sure they don't trouble your sleep at all, you selfish, cowardly SOB.

        You forget, he was OUR genocidal mass murderer until he decided to start throwing his weight around.
      • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1You can put words in my mouth all night, you stupid *****, but it won't change the fact that the USA is wrong. The Iraqis didn't attack us, we attacked them. That's illegal. I didn't make the laws, I'm simply pointing it out. Deal with it.
      • ScubaDude1960, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Estimates are that Saddam murdered about 50,000 people. Between the two Gulf Wars and the sanctions, the U.S. has killed AT LEAST 1.7 MILLION, and maybe as many as 3 MILLION. We destroyed most of their hospitals, schools and fresh water supplies. They were much better off under Saddam.
  • jxs2151, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Ahhhh, the two minute Digghate.
  • espek, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Bush still believes in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.
    But that doesn't mean they exist.

  • ronaldinho, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3***** it, maybe he should search for Osama bin Laden first instead of those WMDs, at least we DO know he exists
    • 2reflective, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Of course he exists - he works for the CIA. The people who planned 9/11 are laughing their asses off every time they see soldiers looking for him in caves.
    • ScubaDude1960, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Osama is hiding in the bunker with Cheney. They play spades and watch soap operas all day.
  • Jamihabs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Bush wasn't the only one to believe Saddam had WMDs

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ffreedomagenda%2Ecom%2Firaq%2Fwmd%5Fquotes%2Ehtml
  • mgks2007, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Has anybody considered the fact that when they brought that madman out of the spider hole that they got their WMD .
  • strOphe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1This is what happens, insulation at the top from contrary opinions. Your advisors want and need for there to be weapons to justify their foreign policy doctrine. Everything that comes to you becomes filtered through that assumption. It's what happened to the pre-war intelligence and it's typical of a president with little experience surrounding himself with a cabinet far more accomplished than himself. You'd be delusional too when you have people like Rummy and Cheney interpreting reality for you for six years and you've never written an email.
  • RealHyperX, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3You ***** liberal ***** only hope Bush loses this war in Iraq. You also hope more terrorists attack us here on U.S. soil. ***** ass *****!
    • StaticThunder, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Coward. You're more afraid of terrorists than losing your freedoms. You care more about your safety than your country. Coward. Coward. Coward.

      • hittnrun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If there is ever another attack, you will be first in line to bray, "GWB asleep at the switch" and "Why didn't he do more to protect us". Your rant is easy when you aren't responsible for anything but wiping your own ass, and as we saw with Katrina, even a dirty diaper can be blamed on the President by you LOSERS. Grow up.
        • StaticThunder, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Right, so lets give him all the power in the world. Lets make him dictator for life. If you're going to take and take and take responsibility, you damn well better make us safer. And you know what? Bush and the neocons havn't. YOU MORONS haven't made us safer, but you have shredded the constitution. Throwing more money and lives at his feet isn't going to help, and calling me a "***** ass *****" or a "libtard" or a "loser" isn't going to change the fact that YOU ARE ALL COWARDS. You're the most powerful country in the world and you're AFRAID OF MEN WHO LIVE IN CAVES IN AFGHANISTAN. I say to you, GROW UP, there are worse things than dying.

          The way you go on about terrorism, you'ld think you're afraid of leaving your house in the morning because driving safely to work is MORE IMPORTANT than al qaida.
    • katie212, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1You need to stop being a sqealing chicken little chump! The sky is falling...The sky is falling!.....You little weasel coward.
  • DopplerDuck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0He knew there were WMD's V/s He knew there weren't any!

    Both could be true if Bush has a split personality/serious bipolarity.
  • hittnrun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1All it would take is to find one cache and your little gamble would be over. It's worked so far. Good for you. Here, for your pleasure. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
    • StaticThunder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1No, it wouldn't, because Iraq was still not a threat to the united state until after we invaded it. I don't care if he had VX nerve gas, he had no delivery devices, and no contact with terrorists and he was our best friend when we were busy selling him weapons to fight Iran. Iraq wasn't worth a single American life, in a preemptive war (to preempt what?), so stick your pompous self-rightous moronic rhetoric up your ass.

      You are everything that is wrong with America today, and I hope you choke on your freedom fries.
  • Grumps, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Whats new? He even think that Americans likes him. WE DONT!
  • Lenhart, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Nonsense! Bush knew there were no WMD...the NEOCONS and Dick Cheney's task force had already planned a war ---they needed pretext. Bush had planned to make war for the oil. There is no CREDIBLE evidence or source that Bush "believed" anything of the sort.
  • Cire64, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I would very much like to see either Bush or Cheney on a lie detector. They're only about 80% accurate from what I hear, but I would trust that machine more than either of them...
  • trbutler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It is completely probable that Bush was given eroneous information about the WMD and when he discovered it was faulty info, by that time, we were at war. It must have been difficult to admit being wrong about something so huge. I only hope this is how it happened and that he didn't know the whole time.
  • katie212, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0BUSH KNEW! He chose to continue to find other reasons to pre-emptively strike Iraq don't you guys remember? Let us NEVER forget please...This is Bushs way of getting out of being prosecuted for war crimes people.
  • fixedcoma, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Well sorry to say it Bush , but i think you've been the second worst weapon of war right there next to saddam Hussein(insane)! Saddam lit the *****' oil fields and probably tilted or environmental future for the worst, but our actions provoked it, what's new though everybody like provoking their own problems!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.