Not-My-President Bush sends a message.

[Guest Galactic Gigolo]

Now that the War on Iraq is finished, I figured I'd open this up in its own thread.

~~~~~

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush (news - web sites) said Saturday it is a matter of when — not if — weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq (news - web sites) while suggesting that task is getting little help from Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s captured confederates.

 

"We'll find them," Bush said of Iraq's suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. "It'll be a matter of time to do so."

 

Iraq's alleged possession of such weapons was Bush's main rationale for war, but none has been found since Saddam's government fell more than three weeks ago.

 

Bush and other U.S. officials had indicated that coalition troops may come up empty in their hunt, saying it is possible that weapons were destroyed before or during the U.S.-led war. On Saturday, a senior Bush aide offered another explanation, saying initial information suggests Iraq's weapons programs was geared mostly toward just-in-time production.

 

Bush pointed out that the United States was not alone in its accusations against Iraq, noting that the United Nations (news - web sites) resolution approved unanimously in the Security Council last fall stated it had banned weapons.

 

"Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," Bush said in a joint appearance at his ranch with Australian Prime Minister John Howard. "It's well known."

 

He said the search would be difficult and lengthy, but ultimately successful.

 

"Iraq's the size of the state of California. It's got tunnels, caves, all kinds of complexes," he said.

 

Bush complained that Tariq Aziz, one of Saddam Hussein's closest deputies, is not cooperating with U.S. forces who have him in custody since April 24.

 

The deputy prime minister was the most visible face of the former Iraqi government other than Saddam's, and Aziz was the official who made Iraq's case before the world when it invaded Kuwait in 1990.

 

U.S. officials had hoped that Aziz could provide information about the deposed president's whereabouts and Iraq's weapons.

 

"Tariq Aziz still doesn't know how to tell the truth," Bush said. "He didn't know how to tell the truth when he was in office. He doesn't know to tell the truth when he's been — as a captive."

 

Bush did not elaborate. But officials say American intelligence agents are able to check one prisoner's claims against others, now that an increasing number of Iraqi leaders are in U.S. hands. The United States has documents that help verify responses from captives, they said.

 

Bush professed no concern about the lack of credible information, saying that lower-ranking officials and regular citizens "will come forward" and provide it.

 

"We'll find out a lot about the nature of the Hussein regime as time goes on," he said.

 

Referring to the deck of cards of wanted Iraqis, Bush said: "It may not be the aces, kings and queens and jacks that do the talking. It may be those are doing the carrying the water for the aces and kings and queens and jacks that do the talking."

 

Bush and Howard were together for less than a day. The prime minister and his wife, Janette, joined Bush in northern California on Friday afternoon and flew with him aboard Air Force One back to Texas. The Howards left after lunch on Saturday.

 

The discussions occurred mostly in social settings. The two couples had dinner together Friday night — followed by an early bedtime for all. Saturday morning, Bush treated Howard to his usual speed-walking tour of his 1,600-acre Prairie Chapel Ranch.

 

Amid their morning sessions, Bush also squeezed in some telephone diplomacy. He spoke to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (news - web sites) and with Jordan's King Abdullah II on the Bush-supported international "road map" for peace in the Middle East.

 

The visit was a thank-you to Howard, a staunch U.S. ally on Iraq who sent a small number of Australian troops to the war despite severe opposition at home.

 

Hundreds of thousands attended peace rallies across Australia — once forcing Howard to leave his official residence on foot when anti-war protesters barricaded the exit. But his popularity has since soared.

 

Bush himself faced protests a few miles from his home Saturday evening. Scores of people gathered at the entrance of the road that leads to his ranch, one of them carrying a poster-sized photo of what appeared to be an Iraqi man holding a dead child. Five people were arrested for failing to obtain a permit to assemble, said Randy Plemons, the chief deputy sheriff for McClennan County.

 

"Times get tough when you make tough decisions, and we both made a tough decision," Bush said. "But there was never any doubt in his mind. He was steady under fire. He stood his ground when he needed to stand his ground because he understands the difference between right and wrong."

 

Howard congratulated Bush "on the leadership that you gave to the world, at times under very great criticism."

 

"What was achieved in Iraq was quite extraordinary," he said. "The United States, I think, has sent a very important message not only to the region but to the rest of the world."

 

Bush told reporters he hoped to complete a free trade agreement with Australia by the end of the year and have Congress ratify it in 2004. The deal is a priority for Howard.

 

The Middle East came up, with Howard thanking the president for his involvement. "We see progress on this issue as being very important to consolidating what has been achieved in Iraq and building on the message of freedom that came out of the operation in Iraq," Howard said.

 

The leaders also discussed Australian efforts to combat terrorism in Indonesia and their joint desire to see the United Nations lift sanctions on Iraq.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I honestly believe that if Bush doesn't find weapons, it won't take him long to plant some lethal ones that can't be traced back to the US in some of those caves.

 

It's not my hating of Bush that makes me say this. Any dumbass who goesinto a war on the basis of a country of WMD, yet won't release the documents that say they're there, is not going to admit defeat. Especially in a situation where a war that killed many Iraqis (though CNN would have you believe a couple pople suffered a hangnail, then hugged the troops) and made several countries hate us even more.

 

Discuss. Or I'll cut you.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

You recognize one of their scientists said they had WMD but started destroying things right before the war.

 

 

I honestly don't know what to think about Iraq's weapons program, but it's my belief that we will not find any "weaponized" chemicals in Iraq. Whether that is because they were all destroyed ten years ago or one month ago is hard to say but after hearing Iraq's top scientist say that time will prove him right, I have a feeling he might be telling the truth.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

U.S. investigators are unlikely to find Iraq's alleged chemical and biological weapons at any site suspected of having them before the war, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Sunday.

 

Note to administration: next time you want to go to war with someone, just SAY it's because the nation's run by asshole dictators that murder their own citizenry. You look a lot less dopey in the long run.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I think the war would have been so much more acceptable if we had come out from the start and said "We need to eliminate a terrible dictator and allow their people to be self-governed." I know I would have at least accepted it if that were the case. However, the WMDs argument is going to get them in trouble if they keep pushing it. Of course, they'll probably plant one or two if they don't find any anyways, so whatever.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

While I still think something will be found. It's a large country, and only know are more people being brought in too look.Also, they've found chemicals, but not WMD isn't it possible that these chemicals were going to be used for WMD. That obviously isn't strong enough evidence, but it's very possible that Iraq could of had the materials necessary and maybe didnt' assemble the weapons.

 

But, I agree that the attracities committed by Hussein should been a bigger issue before the war.

[Guest Slapnuts00]

You can't just go around removing leaders from power that you don't like. The weapons of mass destruction argument gives them a legal reason to go to war since they were violating terms of a treaty.

Im confident they'll find em eventually, or at least find out what happened to them. Someone has to speak eventually...

[Guest Vern Gagne]

You can't just go around removing leaders from power that you don't like. The weapons of mass destruction argument gives them a legal reason to go to war since they were violating terms of a treaty.

Im confident they'll find em eventually, or at least find out what happened to them. Someone has to speak eventually...

I agree. The human rights violations Hussein committed was more of a side issue. In the sense that the WMD would be the main cause, but the administration at the same time should of been hammering how horrible Hussein was.

[Guest NoCalMike]

No one is shedding any tears now that Saddam is out of power, but that is besides the point of why we went to the war in the first place. It was first based on the bullshit that Saddam had a part in 9/11, then it was all because of the WMD and if we didn't act now then our smoking gun would come(as bush said)"In the form of a mushroom cloud" Then Bush goes ahead and names the War Iraqi Freedom trying to get everyone to forget about the propogandha that was spinning in order to get us there.

[Guest Vyce]

Can I just say something? Copping the "He's not MY President" line? The very definition of RETARDED.

 

That shit was stupid back when Republicans / conservatives pulled it with Clinton, it's stupid now.

 

Are you American? If so, then he's your president, no matter how much you despise him. So try very hard and not make a fucking imbecile of yourself.

 

I think the war would have been so much more acceptable if we had come out from the start and said "We need to eliminate a terrible dictator and allow their people to be self-governed." I know I would have at least accepted it if that were the case.

 

Hell, it would have been good enough if they just used the fact that Hussein had been documented time and time again to have supported / funded terrorism against Israel. But honestly, do you think this administration would have gathered as much support if they just argued that he's a dictator who must be removed? There'd have been an even WORSE mess pre-war.

 

The WMD argument may bite them on the ass, but, logically, it was an argument that would have garnered more support than just flat out saying "He's a bad guy, we need to kick his ass."

 

However, the WMDs argument is going to get them in trouble if they keep pushing it. Of course, they'll probably plant one or two if they don't find any anyways, so whatever.

 

Wow, is that cynical.

 

Supposing this was Gore who was waging the war, would you feel the same way?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Hell, it would have been good enough if they just used the fact that Hussein had been documented time and time again to have supported / funded terrorism against Israel.

 

Then, the argument goes that it's not our war...

 

But honestly, do you think this administration would have gathered as much support if they just argued that he's a dictator who must be removed? There'd have been an even WORSE mess pre-war.

 

I believe that people would have been harder pressed to justify their position if we were truly in the moral right, here. That's the problem I have with this war; we haven't truly established that we're correct beyond a shadow of a doubt. If we had documented his torture and whatnot, I think people would have easily accepted that he needs to go. All it would take is a faint mention of the ejection of weapons inspectors (keep in mind, we got them to go back in there, but when this came up, they weren't in there) and everyone would have jumped on board immediately, IMO. Of course, everything changed about twenty times between the "9/11 connections", their "immediate threat" to us, and then to the legal matters, and then to the dictator card... it seemed like we were totally fishing for a reason to go to war with them, and it completely killed any support I had for action in Iraq. It is extremely ridiculous that we can change our minds about twenty times, but suggest throughout that we need to invade them.

 

Supposing this was Gore who was waging the war, would you feel the same way?

 

Beyond a shadow of a doubt. If Gore had based his entire action in Iraq on the premise that they had WMDs, it would be complete political suicide to not find them. Therefore, no matter who the president was, they would plant one or two to make sure they were correct. I don't care if Abe freakin' Lincoln was the president, he'd do the same thing.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Also, they've found chemicals, but not WMD isn't it possible that these chemicals were going to be used for WMD. That obviously isn't strong enough evidence...

No it isn't strong enough. Considering that your average high school chemistry lab has the materials needed to produce a substantial quantity of mustard gas and cyanide, not to mention all kinds of various explosives.

 

Hell, if I were the vindictive crazy sort, I could've done terrible things with the access I had to my school's lab.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I think the war would have been so much more acceptable if we had come out from the start and said "We need to eliminate a terrible dictator and allow their people to be self-governed." I know I would have at least accepted it if that were the case.

But then they couldn't have tied it into the War On Terror, and it would have been it's own standalone war.

 

They needed a way to shoehorn it in so they could say "You aren't against the war on terror, ARE YOU? (wink wink, nudge nudge, point to completely unrelated pile of WTC rubble in the corner)"

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Beyond a shadow of a doubt. If Gore had based his entire action in Iraq on the premise that they had WMDs, it would be complete political suicide to not find them. Therefore, no matter who the president was, they would plant one or two to make sure they were correct. I don't care if Abe freakin' Lincoln was the president, he'd do the same thing.

The thing is that locals and news reporters have been crawling all over the country now.

 

An attempt to plant evidence this late in the game would probably be met with cries of "Hey, that wasn't there last week!" by the media.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I'm sure they could find some random, unsearched airfield and toss a few mortar shells tipped with VX into a box near it.