Now this is a turn up for the books? I wonder if he will come back later and “clarify” his statement?
It’s time other American’s faced upto the reality, and admit that they were very wrong as well?
I was wrong on Iraq - Fox pundit
A right-wing American television presenter who outspokenly supported the Iraq war has backtracked on his views. The Fox News network’s Bill O’Reilly told viewers he was now sceptical about the US president’s claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. “I was wrong,” said Mr O’Reilly, adding “all Americans should be concerned” that no such weapons had been found. President George W Bush led the US to war in Iraq, claiming its arsenal of illegal weapons posed a threat. However, since the war, successive teams of investigators have been unable to find any evidence that Iraq possessed these weapons of mass destruction. David Kay, the US official appointed by President Bush to lead the search for Iraq’s weapons, resigned last month, complaining that the intelligence that led to the war was mistaken. Under growing pressure from his critics, President Bush has announced an inquiry into apparent pre-war intelligence failures.
Pre-war promise
Mr O’Reilly did not criticise the president, but instead indicated the blame lay with American’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). “I think every American should be very concerned for themselves that our intelligence is not as good as it should be,” he said. “I don’t know why [CIA director] Tenet still has his job.” Mr O’Reilly made his statement on ABC television, the US rival to Fox News, keeping a promise he made before the war to publicly apologise if no banned weapons were found in Iraq.
Gee, that is the nice thing about being Chomsky and changing your mind on sanctions, or some TV tlking head, is that you can change your mind, and it means nothing but more hot air.
When we find out that Saddam really did not massacre the Kurds, Shia's, Marsh Arabs, start a war with Iran, another war with Kuwait, launch missles at Saudi and Israel, torture and murder political dissenters, then you can wake me.
Well maybe other American's will now start admitting they were wrong? Or maybe they are still busy celebrating the 'achievments' of the US military, who in "liberating" Iraq now seem to be outdoing Saddam in killing tens of thousands of Iraqi innocents.
But Bill O'Reilly, the hero of the neo-cons has made a start...
I join the bandwagon, my country was wrong about WMD.
( I wonder when Clinton will admit he was wrong. Actually he admitted to the Prime Minister of Portugal that at the time of the war, that he too believed that Saddam had WMD. )
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Gee, that is the nice thing about being Chomsky and changing your mind on sanctions, or some TV tlking head, is that you can change your mind, and it means nothing but more hot air.
When we find out that Saddam really did not massacre the Kurds, Shia's, Marsh Arabs, start a war with Iran, another war with Kuwait, launch missles at Saudi and Israel, torture and murder political dissenters, then you can wake me.
How many genocides does he get free?
[/QUOTE]
OG it would have been nice if those were the reasosn put forth by the president. The case for war or occupation to be exact was made on WMDs and imminent threat to US security which is frankly bull crap.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Iraq had weapons in 1998 when the UN left.
There is no excuse for Bush's failure in Iraq post-war.
[/QUOTE]
On the Contraire ...according to Scott Ritter there were no weapons of mass destruction when UN left in 1998. Please stop spreading lies and rumors for once in you life.
In 1998 Ritter said Saddam was not disarmed, he resigned because he claimed Clinton was too soft on Saddam. Keep the personal insults in check, you know better, and do your fact checking better.
“While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq’s proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.”.
This is article is written by Scott Ritter himslef. Here is the link http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm
Now read and weep. Did US go over to finsish off the rest of 5% that the brutal sanctions could not do from 1998 to 2003. Get your head checked or better yet take that dome off for a while and let a little fresh air help you regain senses.
WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.
It’s highly amusing to see some American’s now use the testimony of Scott Ritter to justify their lost arguments, especially as they have been trying to discredit him for so so long. I need to PM a notable guppie who was castigated by the neo-con supprting yanks for using Mr Ritter as a source not that long.
Oh it is so sweet to see so many people spinning around.
How does the threat to neighbors translate into threat to US? Chem-bio operations capacity to what? develop medicine or weapons? why are we so keen on Saddam's weapons (none of which have been found) when we cannot even capture the person who killed a few americans by using anthrax. Maybe we should destroy each and every factory in US that can or is producing chemical and biological material. How does that sound?
Removing Saddam removed a thorn, a thorn that forced sanctions onto Iraq that in turn through Saddam's cruelty and manipulative ways put the suffering onto everyday Iraqis.
Let's face it, Ritter probably got screwed. While right on the facts, he could have just as easily been wrong. As no inspector had been active since 1998, he could not possibly have known what was going on while the inspectors were absent. The inspectors had been fooled before, so the credibility of the inspectors in general was suspect. The administration made the assumption that Saddam had simply evolved to be more evasive. Ritter was right, and lucky.
OG since when did we become Genocide police.. there are enough problems in this country.. we can't spend tax dollars on every nincumpoop who wants to oppress his people.. afterall we might have to actually sever relations with Communist China.. since Communism is so bad and thanks to us Evil USSR is broken up..... OR is Communism good these days? .. i keep losing track of who we're loving or hating.. I better check in with the neo-cons on who's on our list next.. can't be Kim.. too far away from Israel to pose an actual threat to 'us'..
I consider the deposing of a Genocidal dictator to be one HECK of a good reason to go to war!
No, you can't oust every two bit leader who beats up on his people. But you can make high profile examples of ones who continue outrageous behavior.
Saddam got caught in a twist. The correct answer for him was to open his doors completely and fully, and let the inspectors interview everyone without minders, ship them to Cyprus if they want and create some credibility. He then would have been eligible for the Qaddafi reformation option.
The real reason that WMD had become a bigger hot button post 9/11, is that the terrorist has now become the newest weapons delivery system. You do not need pilotless drones, missles, fighter jets, or artillery shells to attack your enemy. The "stateless terrorist" is now the delivery system of choice. They are suicidal, deniable, highly secure, undetectable, and reasonably reliable. So then you have to admit that you can't stop every terrorist, so you have to go after the weapons, and their likely suppliers. Did Saddam intend to do it? Not at this time. But he tried to assasinate Bush Sr., and that was a pretty audacious act. At a minimum he was dangerously unpredictable.
The biggest mess that Bush Jr got himself into was the WMD. I can hear his father and Colin Powell going on that we "must form a coalition". And the only ISSUE that there was nearly unanimous agreement on was WMD. So that was pushed to the forefront. What SHOULD have been pushed is the inability of the UN to indict Saddam for crimes against humanity.
So the whole debate on WMD was a mess. It does not change the fact that Saddam is possibly the only serving leader who could be indicted for the killing of literally hundreds of thousands of his innocent opponents.
But then again, Saddam was only killing Muslims, so why should I care?
