Word: wmd
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...only the British insiders who're spilling the beans. A star witness at the British inquiry was a certain Andrew Wilkie, who quit his job as a senior Australian intelligence official, privy to U.S. intelligence briefings, in protest against what he saw as a deliberate distortion of WMD evidence to support "ridiculous", "preposterous" and "fundamentally flawed" claims made to justify the invasion. And Wilkie's testimony has prompted other Australian officials to come forward and trash the "garbage" intelligence that helped make the case...
...None of this has particularly deterred President Bush, and why would it when polls find that upward of 80 percent of Americans still believe the Administration's prewar claims on Iraqi WMD and one-third even believe WMD have actually been found in Iraq. It would appear that President Bush himself may be among that third: Three weeks ago, Bush told a Polish TV interviewer that "we have found the weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. That came as news to even his staunchest allies - the president appeared to be referring to two trailer-mounted laboratories that...
...since backed away from the claims over the mobile labs, saying they were "not irrefutable." Nor was that sign that different elements of the administration were spinning incompatible versions of the story. Fleischer this week, for example, dismissed as "fanciful" the suggestion that Saddam might have destroyed his WMD on the eve of an invasion. But among the previous sources of that "fanciful" suggestion was Defense Secretary Rumsfeld...
...Saddam posed no immediate threat to the U.S. but he would eventually pose such a threat, so better to eliminate his regime now - thus former NSC staffer Ken Pollack. The Democrats appear confused on whether to exploit the intelligence meltdown, with most hewing cautiously to the belief that the WMD claims that justified their vote for war will eventually emerge. But presidential contender Senator John Kerry this week accused President Bush of lying in making his case for war - perhaps a reflection that Kerry, who voted for the war, is losing ground among the party's liberal base...
...what he called "revisionist historians" questioning the administration's case for war in Iraq. The metaphor was an unfortunate one for Bush, in the sense that revisionist historians are those that reinterpret evidence to challenge existing judgements on history - but in the case of Iraq's alleged WMD, the problem is that the evidence on which the administration's case was based has either failed to materialize, or in some cases simply been negated. And among those "revising" the history of the Iraq campaign to deemphasize the importance WMD is Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, ostensibly the war's intellectual...