WikiLeaks vindicates George W. Bush

And the world is now upside down.

Take time to read this, it’s important.


  1. From the original source article:
    An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq.

    Which is the exact opposite of “WikiLeaks vindicates Bush.” The article goes on to note about the WMD docs in the WikiLeaks dump, that they are about the “[r]emnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War,” and that many were still under UN seal and others “were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.”

    What Bush was selling was the threat of new WMD production, not the well-known, verified, and hardly scary claim that Iraq had WMDs years and years ago.

  2. So you are right and the man with an opinion published in a national paper is wrong.

    Aren’t we fortunate you dropped by today. I mean, with Bill Clinton as president we really don’t have anything to worry about anymore, do we?

  3. Your “man with an opinion published in a national paper” is recycling BS circulated in October (when those WiliLeaks docs were first dumped) because of the new Plame/ Wilson movie starring Sean Penn (see his last paragraph). He’s still nursing that grudge, and trying to prove that Bush’s claim that Iraq had sought yellowcake from Africa–the claim Wilson debunked–was true.

    But he can’t prove that it’s true at all, and he abuses several different sources to do it. One of them is the Wired article about the dumped docs, which clearly indicates that there is no vindication for Bush–it makes no mention of yellowcake and the WMDs discussed in them are usually done so in the context of old WMDs falling into the hands of new insurgents who never existed before we invaded and created conditions for them to 1) form and 2) steal WMD that Saddam had let lie dormant for more than a decade while he was contained by the UN.

    A second source was the AP, which your “man with an opinion published in a national paper” claims proves Saddam did seek the yellowcake and even had some! But that AP reporting about yellowcake shipped out of Iraq was clearly about pre-1991 and absolutely not proof of Bush’s claims.

    I know this because I bothered to check the sources cited by your “man with an opinion published in a national paper,” rather than take his word for it. None of it vindicates Bush. Period.

  4. Hang on to your bitter hate as long as possible, Folkbum. By all means hold fast to the past and ignore the obvious present.

  5. weuseourbrains says:

    just like she always does when she is called out, she insults the commenter and doesn’t address a single specific thing cited in the post. folkblum, it’s no use. it’s a complete waste of time to try and engage someone whose head is that far up their own ass. this is not an intelligent conservative. there are not many, and she’s simply not one of the few.

  6. True, I’m not much in the mood to argue.

    That source article from Wired says:

    But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.

    And then your sentence, “An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq.” and then the paragraph finishes with this:

    But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.

    Does the “but” not count in your mind? “At first glance” doesn’t mean anything to your reasoning when trying to prove the author wrong?

    I’m so sorry I don’t hold the remarkable omniscience of a liberal with a grudge. How very fortunate we are to be schooled so thoroughly with a quote taken out of full context. (That’s sarcasm, BTW.)

    Elder might be writing his opinion now because of the movie, but it doesn’t mean his opinion is invalid. In his mind George W. Bush is being cleared of your damning “Bush lied and people died” mantra. I’m glad he shared his opinion, because it’s influencing mine. I bet it’s working to influence others, too.

    Isn’t this what your rebuttal is about? Watching history be righted when you preferred your version remain honored instead?

  7. If you want to talk context, Cindy, look at the last sentence from Wired that you quoted: Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.

    The WMDs discussed in the WikiLeaks docs are not new ones under development by Saddam when we invaded, but rather old stockpiles that are newly dangerous because of the instability created by our invasion.

    Larry Elder’s argument is that Bush was right in 2003 when Bush claimed that Saddam was present-tense rebuilding his WMD programs. The WikiLeaks docs do not support that argument, and neither does the AP report about yellowcake being flown out of Iraq.

    Elder is welcome to his opinion, and you are welcome to yours, but I ought to be welcome to point out that the “facts” on which that opinion is based are not, in fact, facts.

  8. So there were elements for building WMDs in Iraq at the time of invasion. That’s what you just said, right? That’s all I ever understood the claim to be.

    Is that a fact or not? I’ll say it is, you claim it isn’t. We differ. I’m really comfortable maintaining my position in this argument. That appears to bother you, but hey. I’ll live.

  9. That’s all I ever understood the claim to be.
    Well, there’s the problem. That was not Bush’s claim at the time, and it’s not even the one Elder thinks has been “vindicated.” Bush and his team clearly and forcefully argued that Iraq was pursuing new WMD–the words recently sought were a key part of Bush’s claim and the whole reason Wilson wrote his op-ed in the first place, kicking off a series of events culminating in a limited-release art-house movie, a Larry Elder op-ed, and this stupid blargument.

  10. As an outsider, it is apparent that all of the above are opinions. Just that. A histrionic writing style claiming the only squatters rights to ‘facts’ does not trump the unknowable. Who really has the answers and can explain the motivations of dead guy with a diabolical bend to his thinking?

    Seems like there is much emotive energy focused on personal attacks disguised as gentlemanly discourse.

  11. RL, of course I cannot know the unknowable, but I can verify whether an opinion writer’s use of sources supports his argument. And in Elder’s case, his sources do not say what he says they say.

  12. And Britain stood behind the statement in 2003. A bipartisan report took out Joe Wilson’s claim. But that’s not good enough for you.

    Your omniscience is remarkable in this situation, Folkbum. I sure could have used some of your super duper skill when I had little kids at home.

    And so, to continue the “stupid blargument” you’ve enjoyed thus far, I’ll ask again:

    So there were elements for building WMDs in Iraq at the time of invasion. That’s what you just said, right?

    It’s easy. There were elements for building WMDs or there weren’t elements for building WMDs at the time of invasion. I really do want to know if we agree on something.

  13. I am really curious also about the answer to Cindy’s re-stated question. Do you agree, folkbum? It appears so.

    Also, I have an more of an inclination to mull over the opinions of those who don’t use the ‘S’ word as we ( as I taught my children when youngsters and now my grandkids) call ‘stupid’. Oh, and the low-vocab rants and insults of the commentor with the runonbrainname that seems to be your friend, invalidated any substance within his comments with that similar approach to ‘win’ a debate.

  14. Ok, kids. I’m showered. That means it’s time to focus on Sunday, not arguments. I’m spending time with the family after church, and then have plans for tomorrow morning, so it will likely be Monday afternoon before I continue.

    I’m still waiting for Folkbum’s answer, too. If he should give it, don’t interpret my lack of reply to be anything other than I’m busy for a while.

  15. So there were elements for building WMDs in Iraq at the time of invasion.
    This is what you say, Cindy.

    Here is what Bush said (from the speech Elder quotes):

    The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. [. . .]

    [Saddam Houssein] is assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons.

    Your claim and Bush’s claim are not the same. The WikiLeaks docs do not support Bush at all. They support you, that there was material for making WMD, but that was never in question. Bush argued that Iraq was actively in the present tense pursuing new WMD, including nuclear weapons. WikiLeaks shows no such thing.

    Ergo, to say, as you and Elder do in titling your respective pieces, that WikiLeaks vindicates Bush, is false. WikiLeaks shows no evidence, none, that Iraq pursued new nuclear weapons or tried to develop new biological or chemical agents between the end of the first gulf war in 1991 and the invasion in 2003. Period.

    So your question–were there “elements for building WMDs in Iraq at the time of invasion”?–can be answered as yes. The actual question you are avoiding–does the WikiLeaks doc dump from October vindicate Bush?–can only be answered in the negative.

  16. Chapter One Case Study: Iraq

    “Extensive post-war investigations were carried out by the Iraq Survey Group
    (ISG).The ISG found no evidence that Iraq had tried to reconstitute its capability
    to produce nuclear weapons after 1991; no evidence of BW agent stockpiles or of
    mobile biological weapons production facilities; and no substantial chemical
    warfare (CW) stockpiles or credible indications that Baghdad had resumed
    production of CW after 1991.”

  17. Ok, so a guy stands up and points a gun at me. I don’t know if the gun is loaded, but everyone in the room says I should shoot first. Am I wrong if I shoot now and find out the gun wasn’t loaded later?

    That’s pretty much the same thing you are saying about Bush. Materials for WMD existed, Hussein knew how to assemble them, the Brits said there was new acquisition and the Brits never backed down from that stance. The Senate, the House, and even the freakin’ UN agreed with the decision to go to war, but you demand that “Bush lied and people died.”

    The WikiLeaks dump as referenced in the Elder article confirmed chemical weapons remained in Hussein’s arsenal from the Gulf war. The gun was loaded. Yes, it vindicates the decision to go to war, and thus George W. Bush.

    We’ve argued respectfully in the past, but I have to say, it has been really difficult to respect your effort this time. You simply won’t deal with the facts on this one. Oh, well.

  18. Dan R, that’s a 2005 source. The argument hinges on the Wired article re: the October 2010 WikiLeaks dump.

  19. The Wired article is misleading, Cindy.

    The second sentence states: ” for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.”

    If you follow the link that accompanies that sentence you’ll discover that the chemical weapons referred to were weapons that Iran supplied to insurgents during the Iraq War:

    “WikiLeaks may have just bolstered one of the Bush administration’s most controversial claims about the Iraq war: that Iran supplied many of the Iraq insurgency’s deadliest weapons and worked hand-in-glove with some of its most lethal militias.

    The documents indicate that Iran was a major combatant in the Iraq war, as its elite Quds Force trained Iraqi Shiite insurgents and imported deadly weapons like the shape-charged Explosively Formed Projectile bombs into Iraq for use against civilians, Sunni militants and U.S. troops.”

    Examine this sentence from the third paragraph:

    “Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. ”

    Now, you might think that by clicking on the sentence’s link you’ll be directed to a site that offers evidence to bolster that claim, not so. There’s not one mention of remaining “remnants of Saddams toxic arsenal” in the entire USA Today article. In fact, the article confirms what we’ve known for quite some time: “Iraq had no WMDs”.

  20. So anything I think supports my claim is misleading, while any argument you use is – oh, wait, you’ve just known it for quite some time.


    That link wasn’t for the sentence, it was for the phrase “largely destroyed after the Gulf War.” The link was to prove that the weapons were thought to be destroyed. The word “remained” is outside the link. The sentence, in context (someone tell me why that keeps coming up with you guys?) reads that weapons once thought to be entirely destroyed in fact remained.

    (Fine. I’ll admit it. It’s kind of fun watching you all freak. 🙂 )

  21. I don’t notice anyone freaking.

    If I were making a case before a jury that WMD didn’t exist prior to our invasion I would offer as evidence to support my case the 618 page bi-partisan report entitled: “The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction”.

    If you were making the opposite case you would offer as evidence an opinion piece by talk radio personality Larry Elder.

    I would point out to the jury that Larry Elder doesn’t even bother to provide the Wikileaks cable that he claims serves as evidence to support the vindication of George Bush. I would suggest to the jury that the reason he doesn’t provide the Wikileaks cable is because it could very well be that it doesn’t exist.

    If it does indeed exist, would someone please present it, it seems central to this debate.

  22. I would offer the Wired article referenced by Elder, then I’d suggest the importance of a timeline showing new information after your 618 page report. Maybe it’s a really good thing you don’t have to actually prove anything. You aren’t exactly doing well in this small forum.

    The deep links (links within the Wired articles) that lead to aren’t working. You’re an enterprising guy. I bet you can find them if you look.

    When two liberals tag team to continually twist an argument, it’s freaking. You could alway say something like, “I guess we’ll have to wait and see how history writes this one,” but no. You discount those making the argument, stick to outdated information, and insist that somehow I’m wrong for even mentioning it.

    Let me explain, simply, and yet again, I don’t really care what you think. I like the way this story is unfolding, and my opinion won’t change until new information is available to send the issue one way or another. All your old arguments mean nothing at all to me. So, fine. I’m small minded. I have a square head and purple teeth and by the way, my mother really never loved me anyway. I have heard all those things that are tossed by the opposing side as a defense goes badly, but I’m not changing my mind for now.

  23. I didn’t notice anyone freaking either. Just a couple of readers offering up a well informed, well thought out argument that wasn’t all combative and based off actual evidence.

    Thanks for the link Dan.

  24. It used to be that the burden of proof resided with the person making the claim.

    Could it be that the reason the link isn’t working is because the cable doesn’t exist? Doesn’t it make you wonder just a little bit?

    And why haven’t Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and other supporters taken to the airwaves? Why isn’t this story headline news over at Fox … and everywhere else for that matter? You have to admit, if the claim is true, it’s BIG NEWS.

    When you have to resort to attacking those who challenge you, it’s generally an indication that you’re argument is pretty weak.

  25. By all means, consider the evidence settled in 2005. That works for the global warming argument, too, I guess. 😉

  26. I forgot about the connection this debate has to the global warming debate.

    You win. 😉

  27. But it’s such a hollow victory if you really don’t get it… sigh.

  28. CK. I get it.

  29. Oh, Dan R. Gosh, why does the link to the warlogs not work. Darn. I bet it’s a conspiracy or something.

    As I’ve explained, I’m really confident in making the claim that George W. Bush is vindicated in the latest release of documents. That those documents are no longer at your disposal does not negate the finding. I’d bet everyone isn’t on this bandwagon because few have need to vindicate Bush. They’ve been behind him all along. And who knows, it’s certainly happened before that our discussions are a few days or weeks ahead of the curve.

    Saying you’ve freaked is not the same as attacking you. I still can not for the life of me figure how part of a sentence or statement is supposed to equal the whole as you so often claim. Retrace your side of the debate here and see if you really gained any ground. Except for WikiLeaks being down, I’ve held my side of the argument rather well.

  30. Okay, Ive been searching all day for the Wikileaks cable that vindicates Bush, and I must say, I’m having about as much luck as W had searching for WMD. I’m drained! Maybe a bit of comedy is what I need to revitalize my spirits. Enjoy.

  31. “And Britain stood behind the statement in 2003.”
    Evidence presented by Her Highness

    “By all means, consider the evidence settled in 2005. ”
    Contradictory statement by Her Highness

    You know, if you had a valid argument someone would have come to your defense. You don’t have one person in your corner … well, aside from Larry Elder. Perhaps all of your good friends and relatives are vacationing with Randy? And there’s no guarantee that Randy would come to your rescue. After all, he didn’t stick up for you during your poutingly insecure rant over Megyn Kelly. She’s ambitious, hard working, highly intelligent and hot! … she’s everything you’re not.

    Sue me.

    I’m through with you. The next time I want to debate with an obstinate idiot I’ll give Kevin Fischer a try.

    Speaking of defense. How’s that thing going with “The Dark Lord”?

    Nastiness come full circle. I love it! 🙂

  32. I see. This really had nothing to do with debating an issue, did it Dan R.? Your whole point was to make it personal.

    Interestingly, I have found that when you are frustrated with something getting caught in the spam filter you head to your favorite anonymizer. It also happens to be the same site used by the person who is leaving really nasty comments on all the blogs posing often as another blogger. But, your regular IP is showing through at other times, so you have left a good trail to follow.

    Gratefully, you are through with me. What a marvelous Christmas gift! Thanks.

  33. Well. That is quite a revolting glimpse into the dark slimy underbelly of the blogging world.

    A blessed respite and very Merry Christmas to you and yours, Cindy.

  34. Randy in Richmond says:

    Below is a sample of what other connected officials said, mostly Democratic, on this issue prior to Saddam’s overthrow. Many were privy to the same intelligence that the White House had received.
    Based on these and other statements one could argue President Bush simply took the advice of many prominent Democrats to eliminate a potential threat to the mideast, US security, and beyond. In reality he didn’t, but this historical collection could lead one to believe he did.

    ” One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
    President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

    “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
    President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

    “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
    Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

    “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
    Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

    “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

    “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
    Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

    “There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

    “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
    Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

    “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

    “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

    “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

    “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
    Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

    “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

    “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
    Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

    “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
    Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
    Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

    President Clinton stated in February of 1998:

    Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production…. Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq’s remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits…. It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons…. Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he’ll use the arsenal…. President Clinton ~ 1998

  35. Hey welcome home! And thanks for the research.

  36. You’re baaaaaaack! 😀