In the Race

From your article:

"The FBI interrogator says that, WHILE SADDAM SAID HE NO LONGER HAD ACTIVE WMD PROGRAMS IN 2003, the dictator admitted that he intended to resume those programs as soon as he possibly could."

Janet Evans:

"This interview just brings forth additional information to show the false accusations saying President Bush "lied" about WMDs are just that...false."

I don't think I need to elaborate any further regarding the quotes I just sited but I will:  

The reason Hussein no longer had a active WMD program in 2003 (a claim clearly made by U.N. inspection teams before our invasion), is primarily due to the U.N.'s role in thorough weapons inspections of Iraq.  Now I'm sure Saddam would've been happy to resume weapons R&D if U.N oversight had ceased but that was never going to happen, had the policy at the time been allowed to continue (which it would have if we hadn't invaded).  Saddam statements to Piro prove that U.N. inspections had caused him to stop his WMD programs altogether.  I don't think anyone can deny the fact that U.N. inspections were effective in halting Iraq's WMD programs, including Saddam apparently.  

But the American people were told by the President and his administration that Saddam Hussein was ACTIVELY trying to obtain yellow cake uranium in Africa (a complete and total lie, which has been confirmed by CIA operatives), had an ACTIVE WMD program (obviously false according to even Saddam), and had stockpiles of WMD's (false again and confirmed by our invasion AND Saddam's own statements).  President Bush's accusations were ABSOLUTELY fabricated to fit the adminstrations agenda.  This 60 Minutes piece just hits you right between the eyes again with the inconsistancies the Adminstration put out leading up to our War in Iraq.  

I'm trying to keep all sarcasm out of this commentarty Janet, but all you have to do is simply read your own blog post and compare it to the reasons the adminstration gave for going to war, to see the obvious inconsistancies between the President's "fact's" and the realities in Iraq at the time of our run-up to invasion.  It can't be any clearer.  I'm sorry, but it's gotten to the point where many people just want to BELIEVE instead of want to see the truth.  In a democratic society, we are all responsible for the actions of our government, good or bad, but the only way we can make good on our mistakes is to ADMIT we made them and learn from them, even if it's our own political affiliation that's responsible for the mistake.        

Josh,

You know that I know you would dispute my statement.

You are going to tell me Bush "lied."  That he "intentionally" deceived the American people?  Is that what you believe?  You really don't believe he was given bad information?  It was intentional?  Well, I don't believe it was intentional.  Bad information is not a lie.  He had crap working for him...supplying him information.

He admitted he was wrong in January of 2003 regarding the yellow cake uranium

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/09/iraq/main562312.shtml

And here's some information for you to ponder in the quotes within this article:

If Bush "lied," then so did these people

I agree, you have to admit mistakes and take responsibility. 

You don't want to repeat history.

But if it was a lie....it was a lie.  If it was misinformation, that's what it was.

We're talking about the President. 

And I am also saying, Saddam is gone, and it's a good thing.  And I am glad we invaded Iraq and took him out. 

Please go back and re-read your link Janet:

www.cbsnews.com/.../main562312.shtml

Focus on the following part of the article:

"Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador to the West African nation of Gabon, was dispatched in February 2002 to explore whether Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger.

Writing in a New York Times op-ed piece, Wilson said it did not take him long "to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."

In an interview on NBC, Wilson insisted his doubts about the purported Iraq-Niger connection reached the highest levels of government, including Vice President Dick Cheney's office.

In fact, he said, Cheney's office inquired about the purported Niger-Iraq link.

"The question was asked of the CIA by the office of the vice president. The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked, and that response was based upon my trip out there," Wilson said.

Yet nearly a year after he had returned and briefed CIA officials, the assertion that Saddam was trying to obtain uranium from Africa was included in Mr. Bush's State of the Union address."

You do understand what that means correct?  The administration marched Colin Powell out in front of the U.N. and the world and used the "yellow cake uranium" story as it's central theme for going to war with Iraq.  Yet, everyone in the administration, everyone in the CIA, knew as far back as a year BEFORE Bush's State of the Union that the "yellow cake uranium" findings were complete non-sense.   And then, to top it off, when Wilson decided to go public with his findings in Africa, Cheney's office threw his wife (who was a convert operative in the CIA) to the wolves as retaliation.  I don't know what you call "outing CIA operatives for political retaliation" but I know one word for it.  

The basis for EVERY ONE of the quotes of the people you have cited above, were based upon the assumption that the administration was providing detailed, unbiased, factual intelligence reports to Congress, the U.N. and the American public.  There is no doubt, based on the evidence, that intelligence was slanted in favor of War with Iraq and certain pieces of evidence were outright fabricated to reinforce the administration's stance on the subject.  They were so certain of finding WMD's that they didn't have any interest in actually looking at the evidence brought forward by the U.N. and our own intelligence agencies.

Lastly, the argument that everyone else thought Saddam had WMD's is tired.  The President of the United States has access to the most detailed intelligence in the world.  HE is the president, not the people above, and HE is primarily responsible for the actions this country took leading up to our war with Iraq.      

P.S. you might want to go and read Wilson's op-ed piece.  It speaks for itself.  

Sorry, Josh...trying to debate with you on a lunch break does not leave much time for thorough reading of articles.

And you know what...What you are saying is making pretty good sense, so I'll strike that line in my last paragraph.  But I'll bold my last sentence.  

And you are right...the President is primarily responsible for making the decisions.  But you know as well as I do that everyday he is given information from what is supposed to be a competent staff...and THEY are very well capable of not telling the truth.  Colin Powell lied.

You still won't get me to say Bush lied.  

I'll have to hear him say it out of his own mouth.

And so you are trying to tell me that Colin Powell, the same man who told President Bush years before, that if you break Iraq, "you bought it", sat down in front on the U.N. and fabricated a story all on his own that completely went against everything he knew about Iraq and it's people?  No chance.

Whose water do you think Colin Powell was holding? The fact is, Powell was marched out in front of the U.N. because President Bush and his advisors (Cheney, Rumsfeld) knew darn well that the U.N. would trust Colin Powell more than any other American.  Powell's credibility was used as a way to sell the invasion of Iraq just as much as the now famous, "yellow cake uranium" nonsense.  Ironically, Powell happened to be the only voice of reason advising the President at the time (besides the elder Bush).  Once the groundwork for war was in place, Colin Powell's services were no longer needed.  Whether he left on his own or was pushed out makes no difference.  My guess is that he had no problem leaving an administration that had no interest in taking his opinions seriously from day one.  

As for your last sentence:

"If Saddam had stayed in power, there always would have been the WMD threat."

I agree.  But thorough weapons inspections and U.N. sanctions would have continued to curb that threat indefinately, if they were kept in place.  Saddam's own words to Mr. Piro speak to that.  

Meanwhile, incidents described in the link below have become a daily reminder of our continued presence in Iraq:

www.iht.com/.../Iraq.php

Yeah, I guess Cheney lied, too...