What's the difference?

Somebody finally asked Bush about WMDs (and didn't let him off the hook with a soundbite). Look what happened:

DIANE SAWYER: Fifty percent of the American people have
said that they think the administration exaggerated the evidence going
into the war with Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, connection to
terrorism. Are the American people wrong? Misguided? PRESIDENT BUSH:
The intelligence I operated one was good sound intelligence, the same
intelligence that my predecessor operated on. The � there is no doubt
that Saddam Hussein was a threat. The � otherwise the United Nations
might � wouldn't a passed, you know, resolution after resolution
after resolution, demanding that he disarm. ... I first went to the
United Nations, September the 12th, 2002, and said you've given this
man resolution after resolution after resolution. He's ignoring them.
You step up and see that he honor those resolutions. Otherwise you
become a feckless debating society. ... And so for the sake of peace
and for the sake of freedom of the Iraqi people, for the sake of
security of the country, and for the sake of the credibility of institu
� in � international institutions, a group of us moved, and the
world is better for it. DIANE SAWYER: But let me try to ask � this
could be a long question. ... ... When you take a look back, Vice
President Cheney said there is no doubt, Saddam Hussein has weapons of
mass destruction, not programs, not intent. There is no doubt he has
weapons of mass destruction. Secretary Powell said 100 to 500 tons of
chemical weapons and now the inspectors say that there's no evidence of
these weapons existing right now. The yellow cake in Niger, in Niger.
George Tenet has said that shouldn't have been in your speech.
Secretary Powell talked about mobile labs. Again, the intelligence �
the inspectors have said they can't confirm this, they can't
corroborate. 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? 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. DIANE SAWYER: But, but, again, some,
some of the critics have said this combined with the failure to
establish proof of, of elaborate terrorism contacts, has indicated that
there's just not precision, at best, and misleading, at worst.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah. Look � what � what we based our evidence on
was a very sound National Intelligence Estimate. ... DIANE SAWYER:
Nothing should have been more precise? PRESIDENT BUSH: What � I, I
� I made my decision based upon enough intelligence to tell me that
this country was threatened with Saddam Hussein in power. DIANE SAWYER:
What would it take to convince you he didn't have weapons of mass
destruction? PRESIDENT BUSH: Saddam Hussein was a threat and the fact
that he is gone means America is a safer country. DIANE SAWYER: And if
he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction [inaudible] � PRESIDENT
BUSH: Diane, you can keep asking the question. I'm telling you � I
made the right decision for America � DIANE SAWYER: But- PRESIDENT
BUSH: � because Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction,
invaded Kuwait. ... But the fact that he is not there is, means
America's a more secure country.

It's plainly obvious that Bush doesn't have any talking points on the
subject of WMD. Seeing as that was the primary justification for
preemptive action against Iraq, it's a pretty big deal that they
haven't show up.
I realize it's not always a good idea to bring up "the past" in
debates, but the massive intelligence/diplomacy failure is relevant due
to the restructuring of America's foreign policy. If this mistake was
made once under the doctrine of preemption then what's to stop it from
happening again? We as a country need to find out what went wrong in
the rush to war with Iraq, and it's obvious that Bush feels very
uncomfortable discussing it.
Furthermore, that whole "what's the difference" line is not going to
cut it. There is a HUGE difference between having WMDs and having a WMD
"program". Suggesting the two are equivalent is absolutely retarded.
All I'm saying is if Diane Sawyer can make W squirm like this, just
imagine what the democratic nominee will do.

Posted by flow Frazao on December 17, 2003 at 02:45 PM | Permalink