King George had an interview with Diane Sawyer two days ago.
see the full transcript here
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet.
DIANE SAWYER: an active
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet.
DIANE SAWYER: Is it yet?
PRESIDENT BUSH: But what David Kay did discover was they had a weapons program, and had that, that let me finish for a second. Now it's more extensive than, than missiles. Had that knowledge been examined by the United Nations or had David Kay's report been placed in front of the United Nations, he, he, Saddam Hussein, would have been in material breach of 1441, which meant it was a causis belli. And look, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous person, and there's no doubt we had a body of evidence proving that, and there is no doubt that the president must act, after 9/11, to make America a more secure country.
DIANE SAWYER: Again, I'm just trying to ask, these are supporters, people who believed in the war who have asked the question.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, you can keep asking the question and my answer's gonna be the same. Saddam was a danger and the world is better off cause we got rid of him.
DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still
PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?
(Amy: WHAT's the DIFFERENCE??? Is this a joke?)
DIANE SAWYER: Well
PRESIDENT BUSH: The possibility that he could acquire weapons. If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger. That's, that's what I'm trying to explain to you. A gathering threat, after 9/11, is a threat that needed to be de dealt with, and it was done after 12 long years of the world saying the man's a danger. And so we got rid of him and there's no doubt the world is a safer, freer place as a result of Saddam being gone.
So.. pre-emption now includes the ability to go after someone who may in the future acquire WMD? Who may pose a threat at some future time. Well, we're going to be quite busy because that is a vast number of countries in the world. Bush should just come clean and admit, it was never about the WMD. He just wanted Saddam gone and he's been a big fat liar about it all this time.
And P.S. for those of you who still believe that Saddam is behind 9/11 (please stop watching Fox News, it's no where near Fair and Balanced), the proof that Atta was in Baghdad is looking like a fake.-----
EXTENDED BODY:
| 
| Comments (8)
| issues/politics
Comments (8)
URL: http://www.livingreflections.com/blog
CJ- you really should think before you just react wildly....
- I never said we weren't concerned about other leaders
- I certainly never credited Bush with getting the resolution through
- not every member of congress voted to pass the resolution. I think some felt forced into the vote because they would be called unpatriotic right before the mid term elections.
- I don't think anyone has said that Saddam was not a threat at all. But he was a threat that had been successfully contained for 12 years. What was the rush all of a sudden to go in? Bush used WMD as his excuse, an excuse that turned out to be false. Had 9/11 not happened, Iraq never would have happened. My entire beef with Bush is he is using 9/11 to push his own agenda and in the process is lying to the American people, not because I think getting rid of Saddam was a bad thing to do.
- why is it that we can work on these other sources of danger without bombing, couldn't we have done the same in Iraq?
- I've seen no evidence that Dean has changed his opinion on this.
Posted by amy | October 29, 2006 3:27 PM
Posted on October 29, 2006 15:27
URL: http://www.upforanything.net
Jay is exactly right. Those countries are being dealt with. Why do libs assume that because bombs aren't falling, that those countries are being ignored??
And Amy... you say Bush is stupid, and then credit him with fooling the entire Congress into approving a war resolution. Which is it? Does that mean all the people who voted for the resolution are also stupid?
Bush did not lie. And libs will repeat it again and again and again because it seems to make them feel better. Iraq was a threat. It is not a threat anymore. Everyone from Howard Dean to John Kerry has agreed with Bush that Iraq was a threat. Dean just changes his opinion because the political winds have changed.
Posted by CJ | October 29, 2006 3:27 PM
Posted on October 29, 2006 15:27
URL: http://www.musingsfromtheunderground.com
I fail to see how we are not concerned. As someone who was privy to military experience, I can say without a doubt that the American People see about 4% of what is really going on. This goes on despite whether it is Bush Clinton Reagan, et al.
Partisan politics clouds the issues. Just imho
Posted by Jay | October 29, 2006 3:27 PM
Posted on October 29, 2006 15:27
URL: http://www.livingreflections.com/blog
whoops! I'm wrong.. it seems Al said above that we don't seem as concerned about others (which is not the same thing as not being concerned at all). Al is correct here. I think North Korea, Iran and even some of our allies like Saudi Arabia and Russia have some 'splain' to do and no one seems to care about that.
Posted by amy | October 29, 2006 3:27 PM
Posted on October 29, 2006 15:27
URL: http://www.livingreflections.com/blog
CJ - I'm not following your point. No one said he wasn't concerned about other crazy leaders, but can you see that if we can attack people just because they may attack us someday that we not going to be very well liked in the world. We are provoking people with this attitude that we are SO superior.
My critique of Bush here is that he lied to the public in order to go after a guy he just wanted to go after. That doesn't mean Saddam wasn't a bad guy and that it's a bad thing he was stopped, but he got support from congress and the country to do so based on a shakey premise. Do you think he would have gotten approval if he went to congress and just said: Saddam is a bad guy, he tried to kill my daddy? Or Saddam is a bad guy and I want his oil and contracts for my friends companies when we need to rebuild?
Posted by amy | October 29, 2006 3:27 PM
Posted on October 29, 2006 15:27
URL: http://www.upforanything.net
Who says we're not concerned with them? Why do Bush-haters believe that action against Saddam means action against one absent action against another. Each case is different. Just because we haven't bombed North Korea... that doesn't mean action is not being taken. Bush is criticized for a one-track mind, but also criticized because he invades Iraq but not every other country. Which is it?
Posted by CJ | October 29, 2006 3:27 PM
Posted on October 29, 2006 15:27
URL: http://www.thedailypost.net
we went in for oil, the positive outcome of getting saddam is we look like we are ridding the world or a tyrant into the bargain ... that's nice, but there are others we seem to not be as concerned with ?
Posted by al | October 29, 2006 3:27 PM
Posted on October 29, 2006 15:27
URL: http://www.musingsfromtheunderground.com
Am no way defending Bush here, but Iraq has harbored terrorists, including Abu Nidal. We went in for oil, but we also, as an aside, got into a position to be closer to terror backyards.
Just a thought!
Posted by Jay | October 29, 2006 3:27 PM
Posted on October 29, 2006 15:27