November 2005
The stunning reversal by Rumsfeld (full quotes below) is an example of the fast and loose manner in which the Administration is playing with their "position" on Iraq. Goalposts are constantly moved. Targets are never defined, and costs (in lives and treasury) are blatantly under and/or unreported.
Since the Administration is still attempting to turn the very simple issue of why the country was galvanized to war (WMD's) into a convoluted list of reasons, the following contains quotes and excerpts from:
Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld (an Administration sample), the National Review and the Weekly Standard (since they seem to have a symbiotic relationship with the Administration), and more widespread media such as USA TODAY, the L.A. Times, CNN, and FOX (to reflect how statements were/are disseminated through wider media outlets with a much wider reach than the the Review and the Standard).
The reason the fundamental WMD issue is important is that it prevents an honest debate about how to end this war. The events on the ground have certainly changed and must be dealt with, but without keeping in mind that we entered into this war to prevent a catastrophic threat presented as coming in the form of a "mushroom cloud", no reasonable solution can be found to end this war in a satisfactory manner.
2003: post-invasion
(then) Sec. Wolfowitz:
In 2003 Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz gave an interview to Sam Tannenhaus for Vanity Fair in which he was quoted as saying:
A Pentagon transcript (as opposed to the reporter's transcription) shows that Wolfowitz said:
Suspicions about motive began to rise at home and abroad so the Pentagon attempted to "clarify" the statement. Supporting pundits and periodicals did as well. Should the argument arise that they've been arguing this since 2003, that is an undeniable fact... as undeniable that the arguments began after the war started and was declared "Mission Accomplished". The lead-up to the war is a far different matter.
On May 28, 2003, the Pentagon, in an effort to stem the criticism of Wolfowitz's statements, granted an interview of Sec. Wolfowitz to Karen DeYoung from the Washington Post to "correct" the record. The following is an excerpt:
Stephanopolous: If you had known that no WMD's would be found, would you still advocate invasion?
Rumsfeld: If I... I... the answer is probably yes.
The stunning reversal by Rumsfeld (full quotes below) is an example of the fast and loose manner in which the Administration is playing with their "position" on Iraq. Goalposts are constantly moved. Targets are never defined, and costs (in lives and treasury) are blatantly under and/or unreported.
Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld (an Administration sample), the National Review and the Weekly Standard (since they seem to have a symbiotic relationship with the Administration), and more widespread media such as USA TODAY, the L.A. Times, CNN, and FOX (to reflect how statements were/are disseminated through wider media outlets with a much wider reach than the the Review and the Standard).
The reason the fundamental WMD issue is important is that it prevents an honest debate about how to end this war. The events on the ground have certainly changed and must be dealt with, but without keeping in mind that we entered into this war to prevent a catastrophic threat presented as coming in the form of a "mushroom cloud", no reasonable solution can be found to end this war in a satisfactory manner.
2003: post-invasion
(then) Sec. Wolfowitz:
In 2003 Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz gave an interview to Sam Tannenhaus for Vanity Fair in which he was quoted as saying:
"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
A Pentagon transcript (as opposed to the reporter's transcription) shows that Wolfowitz said:
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason..."
Suspicions about motive began to rise at home and abroad so the Pentagon attempted to "clarify" the statement. Supporting pundits and periodicals did as well. Should the argument arise that they've been arguing this since 2003, that is an undeniable fact... as undeniable that the arguments began after the war started and was declared "Mission Accomplished". The lead-up to the war is a far different matter.
On May 28, 2003, the Pentagon, in an effort to stem the criticism of Wolfowitz's statements, granted an interview of Sec. Wolfowitz to Karen DeYoung from the Washington Post to "correct" the record. The following is an excerpt:
"DeYoung: Okay, let me just... But do you think that you might have oversold the whole WMD thing last fall? With the sort of, not only do they have production facilities, they actually have weapons that are ready to be used?
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
