+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/26/2018 04:08 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.338 Visits   4 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
02/08/2004 04:16 PM ID: 36795 Permalink   

Bush Revises Reason for Iraq War


President Bush and Vice President Cheney are now saying the reason for the Iraq War was because Saddam could have created WMDs. This comes after experts have said that no WMDs will likely be found and a commission is investigating pre-war intel.

Cheney told Republican donors yesterday "We know that Saddam Hussein had the intent to arm his regime with weapons of mass destruction. And Saddam Hussein had something else -- he had a record of using weapons of mass destruction..."

Before the US invaded Iraq, Bush and Cheney stated that Iraq was an imminent threat which definitely had WMDs. The intel commission will deliver its report by March 2005 which is well after the next election. Bush says they need to "take its time."

    WebReporter: JFURY Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  Blatant hypocrisy  
This struck me instantly as purely hypocritical. Anyone else? I mean, Bush et al not only "had the intent to arm his regime with weapons of mass destruction", but already has done so. Like Saddam, Bush also has something else.. his (government's) record of using weapons of mass destruction...
  by: acg   02/08/2004 04:52 PM     
well lets be honost, they're just trying to get re-elected. I still think everyones better off without Saddam. But at this point the Bush administration is just spinning it's wheels. At this point I thought they would've just planted some :)
  by: Status-Quo   02/08/2004 05:42 PM     
  Still an asshooooole. n/t  
.What an ass.
  by: McDumpster   02/08/2004 11:43 PM     
  Next version coming  
Saddam had a friend who believed that he could have designed WMD's with time. Since Saddam did not want to give the name of that friend we had to get there ourselves.
  by: beaumarchais   02/09/2004 03:43 AM     
  dumbass bush  
bush is a ****ing liar, the reason was why he invaded iraq becuase his dads was friends with saddam in the 80's and saddam went to the dark side, this little pussy GWB wanted to finish what his dad couldnt. Rest edited by admin....
  by: groomsy     02/09/2004 11:12 AM     
  The last time  
I posted this link I was called CIA. It is George W. Bush's Jan. 29 2002 State of the Union Address. Here it is:
If you actually take the time to read this document you will notice that Bush NEVER CLAIMED IRAQ HAD STOCKPILES OF WMD. He claimed that Iraq had materials and equipment to produce WMD hidden throughout Iraq. This speech was made 2 years ago. How is it that the Washington Post thinks that for Bush and Cheney to say that he had supplies and equipment for making WMD was a case for war as a change of reasoning? The 45 minute launch window was a claim made by and still supported by British Intelligence. There have been WMD equipment finds in Iraq. Here is a link from June 27 2003:
Say what you will, but the media distorted Bush's State of the Union Address to make the WMD claims. Bush did not lie. He has been proven right time and time again, but some of you seem to be blinded by liberal media spin. Read the links I have posted before you try to flame me. I am up to snuff on this and you would be better served to educate yourself before attacking me. If you do choose to rebut my posting you would also be well served to post links to the evidence of your claims from reputable sources and not sources like or other far left hate sites. For those of you who decide not to respond to me, I suggest that you do not change your opinion becuase of what I have said. I encourage you to read more transcripts of speeches made by the man instead of other peoples opinions of those speeches. Get it from the "horse's mouth". Get your info first hand whenever possible. It makes your arguement more credible. Thanks.
  by: tomblik     02/09/2004 05:26 PM     
I'm not going to disagree with you or dispute what you've said, BUT have you ever read the book 1984?

They had a really great group of people in that called the "Ministry of Truth" who, if memory serves me correctly, went round changing everything that was written to put it in line with what the "current" truth was.

Now your links are impressive but who's to say they haven't been altered to show that Bush & Co didn't lie.

The Written word used to be something you could rely on as believable, these days I'm not so sure.
  by: nornaddict2001   02/09/2004 05:42 PM     
There is also a video record of Bush's Jan 29 2002 State of the Union Address that would prove more difficult to edit. It is available at the same site where the transcript of the speech can be found. The video record of that speech was not from only one source and those recordings have been spread all over the world. That makes collecting and revising all of them damn near impossible for a host of reasons least of which would be the great distances they have travelled. Tivo anyone?
  by: tomblik     02/09/2004 08:29 PM     
  re: tomblik  
thanks for your last post. that anyone would suggest that the bush ad. has gone back and revised the transcripts of bush speeches to make it look as though he never claimed Iraq had ready WMDs just shows how insane some of the anti-bush camp (of which i consider myself a member) has become.

but i imagine there are those who will say that anybody who says they have a video of bush's speech that proves he didn't make those claims is part of the conspiracy. hatred is a wonderful thing -- it totally precludes the need to think critically.
  by: sbenglish     02/09/2004 08:53 PM     
At times you and I have gone head to head over our ideological positions, but on this one we are right there eye to eye. I believe that norn was only throwing out a "what if", but that is how crazy conspiracies get started. It is nice to butt heads with another critical thinker from time to time so you keep me on my toes and I will try to do the same for you. If more anti-Bushies would think critically they would have better positions for their arguements. It would also help their arguements to post source material that supports their positions, but not the wehatebush.whatever sites. The hate only clouds the topic and confuses the true purpose of arguement which is to settle disputes - not start new ones.
  by: tomblik     02/09/2004 11:26 PM     
  wrong speech Tomblik  
Its the 2003 speech which has the lies in it. This was the one to state the case for invading Iraq.
We learned Saddam had "several mobile biological weapons labs" which turned out to be false. Also, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This was another lie which the CIA unraveled before the speech.
"Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction." Where the hell are they?
He basically used false intelligence to build a case for war.
  by: JFURY     02/10/2004 12:25 AM     
  missed one  
Bush: "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." No evidence was ever produced for this and most Americans ended up believing that Iraq was behind 9-11. This explains why al Qaeda supports the Shiited.
  by: JFURY     02/10/2004 12:26 AM     
  Desired effect tomblik?  
Tomblik, I'm wondering why you chose to post such a detailed and well written response when you did. None of the comments preceding yours claimed that Bush lied regarding the presence of Ws of MD... Seems your comment only prompted solid evidence of the lies from JFURY. In my experience, someone too quick on defence is often insecure about their own position...
  by: acg   02/10/2004 07:22 AM     
Thanks for posting quality links for supporting evidence to your claims. It does make your claim more credible. Just a couple of points that you may have overlooked. Just because a mobile weapons lab has not been found doesn't mean that they aren't there or never existed. The search continues: In fact, you can't even claim that Bush lied because he didn't say anything that Bill Clinton hadn't already said on December 16, 1998 after having access to some of the same intelligence that Bush based his decisions on. Just read this story:
Try this one on for size too:
Maybe you should read this if still think Bush lied:
Bush and Clinton based their assesment of the situation and solution in Iraq on much of the same intelligence and arrived at the same conclusion. I do respect the lenghts you went to in an effort to put together a strong case for your (not just your case, but the liberal media case) case for Bush being a liar. However, if you stand by that assessment you must also paint the Democrat's hero Clinton with the same brush. Once again you twisted Bush's statements. Bush NEVER CLAIMED THERE WERE STOCKPILES OF WMD. Even in the speech that you posted. A mobile weapons lab has never been considered a stockpile, but one of the following: a supply, or a piece equipment necessary to produce WMD. Seeking to purchase Uranium in Africa isn't a stockpile of WMD either. It was a beer run. Just because you were unable to buy beer doesn't mean you didn't go on a beer run. It just means that your beer run was unsuccessful. Bush never claimed that the Uranium run was successful. You can quote one sentence from the speech about Saddamm "going to great lenghts to build and keep" but you should have included the next paragraph in order to see the quote in proper context. " With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region." The operative word in that sentence is "could". That word implies a possible outcome and not a certainty that you seem hell bent on proving. You asked "where the hell are they". The search continues. Iraq even buried very modern MIG 25 in an effort to hide it. The MIG 25 was built after the first Gulf War, and Iraq wasn't supposed to have it. Read the article and look at the pics for yourself at:
Now my point in mentioning that is that if Iraq would bury an extremely kick ass jet in order to conceal it's existence, what lengths would they go to in order to hide a mobile weapons lab, or the materials necessary to build WMD? Clinton even believes in the Iraq/al-qaeda connections. Read this:
Any other questions? If so feel free to ask me. If you don't feel comfortable coming to me then I suggest you do more homework before you try again. Thanks for the challenge Jfury. You had a good run. Sorry it took so long for me reply. I wasn't in front of a computer for more than 15 hours. Thanks.
  by: tomblik     02/10/2004 03:03 PM     
That is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.
  by: tomblik     02/10/2004 03:04 PM     
  Just a little more  
As to al-Qaeda in Iraq, read these articles.

Need I say more?
  by: tomblik     02/10/2004 08:38 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: