Senator Richard Lugar, R-Indiana
WASHINGTON (CNN)–Sen. Richard Lugar, (R – Indiana), who called last week for a change of course in Iraq, thinks American forces could leave by the middle of 2008. On CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Sen. Lugar said, “I would think a majority of our forces could redeploy by the midpoint of next year, probably before that time, but by then. I've advocated a majority to come out of Iraq, that the rest to redeploy somewhere other than going door to door in the present surge.”
Sen. Lugar made headlines last week with a speech on the Senate floor calling for an end to the current strategy in Iraq. He is the first of three Senate Republicans to criticize the administration’s approach in the last two weeks.
– CNN Associate Producer Jennifer Burch
J Tierney ... "the president believed the worst case intelligence estimates from multiple services and countries"? Umm .. guess who OWNS THAT INTEL as head of the executive branch and sees a far greater amount of it than anybody else (including members of congress)? The intelligence services didn’t oversell the extent of their development – Bush did, and knowingly so! There were plenty of holes in the intel that he spoon-fed congress and the people to get their support. And he knew it!
He paid millions of taxpayer dollars to Ahmad Chalabi and believed "curveball" even though he knew curveball was summarily dismissed as a liar by every intelligence agency on the planet. Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said he had been "pretty convinced" that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997. And Dubya even had weapons inspectors telling him the sites he kept insisting held WMDs were CLEAN.
Think about it, Bush ignored the inspectors who told him they doubted Saddam had those weapons (based on actual SEARCHES) … and therefore chose to ignore the very people who would be the ones to KNOW whether or not Saddam had them. That’s like Bush demanding a lung be removed even though a licensed physician tells him there's no cancer! As has been the case for 7 years now, on a variety of subjects, Bush ignored the people he should have listened to and listened to the people he should have ignored.
See, here’s what Bush did ... and he was smart in a way. Bush knew that no weapons were being found ... and he knew that the longer inspectors searched and didn’t find them, the worse the US would look – especially if the US attacked, which was a foregone conclusion anyway. So rather than logically find the WMDs (that they weren’t finding) proof before he invaded, Bush decided to pull a switch and make a corollary that would put the burden of proof on Saddam rather than the US. Pretty much … “Well, we can’t prove he has them, so we’ll just make HIM prove that he doesn’t. We still can’t prove he’s guilty, so we’ll just make him prove he’s innocent.”
While I don’t deny the WMDs existed at one time, as far as CURRENT POSSESSION goes, I'm going to believe the INSPECTORS WHO CONDUCTED THE SEARCHES rather than hearsay from past administrations, blatantly forged documents, whackjobs like Chalabi, and known liars like curveball. Having something 10 years ago … or possibly having something 10 years from now … does NOT = CURRENT POSSESSION of those weapons. And that’s what the war was based on. THAT’S what Bush took to congress to get funding for the war and other nations to join in his attack.
By the way, the burden of proof is on the accuser. You’re innocent until proven guilty .. not visa versa. It was up to Dubya to prove he had WMDs, not Saddam to prove he didn’t. That’s like someone telling you if you don’t show them proof that you destroyed all the heroin you don’t have, they’re going to have you arrested for having it. Yes, your president IS a liar and your Bush-defending logic is a joke!
Tom in Dedham, Mass .. please take a course in debate logic. You can name and quote all the people you want who were WRONG about Saddam having WMD's – it doesn’t support your case that he had them or that Bush didn't lie too! EVERYBODY who said Saddam had those weapons is a liar until they are FOUND. It can't possibly get any simpler than that.
You, like Bush, chose to believe what people SAID about Saddam's WMDs. I, on the other hand, (as well s anyone with a brain in their head) chose to believe the results of INSPECTIONS done by people who did the searches – people who would therefore be the very ones to KNOW whether or not Saddam had them.
By the way, Clinton and his administration had hearsay as intel, while Dubya had the most recent results ... of real-time searches ... telling him Saddam was clean. BIG difference there!
Something tells me that, after reading this, you'll NEVER use the irrelevant "Well THEY said he had them too!" argument again.
Read what that says down below and see if you can "get my debate logic" that people who ONLY say Bush lied are idiots when other people in the know made the same rightful case.
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Inspectors being barred", this coming from Clinton's Secretary of Defense in 2003. We might want to check Syria.
By the way Rick, I have no problem with these people making these statements, they were being honest.
Yeah, I know, Bush lied.
Mr. Lugar, go home, you're old and you're tired.
The truth of the Matter is War is not nice and yes People will Die.Who are we to judge whats right or wrong.But i will tell you all this for all the cry babies out there,I am an American Citizen and i will back this Country Right or Wrong.But at least i am Man enough to Choose a Side then sit and cry on the side lines.Its really simple if you do not like the way this Country is you have the right to leave.LOL I doubt many other Nations would be so genorus.