On Thursday's The O'Reilly Factor, during his opening "Talking Points Memo," FNC host Bill O'Reilly responded to Scott McClellan's contention, from that day's Today show, that he "felt like we were rushing into" war with Iraq in the run-up to the invasion, by showing a clip of former CIA Director George Tenet saying that before the war he "believed it in my core" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. FNC contributor Karl Rove further quoted a number of Democrats who proclaimed in the fall of 2002 the danger posed by Saddam Hussein, as they saw it.
After O'Reilly mentioned that Saddam Hussein deceived his generals into believing he possessed WMD, Rove recounted that, according to the Duelfer report and the Kay report, Saddam Hussein "was spending vast sums of money to keep together the experts and the dual use facilities so that when the West lost interest in this and the UN sanctions failed, he could reconstitute easily."
O'Reilly played the following clip of McClellan from the Thursday, May 29, Today show:
I felt like we were rushing into this, but because of my position and my affection for the President, and my belief and trust in he and his advisors, I gave them the benefit of the doubt. And looking back on it and reflecting on it now, I don't I should have.
The FNC host then played a clip of Tenet from his appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, dated May 1, 2007:
Let me say something very clearly to everybody. We believed he had weapons of mass destruction. ... I believed it going back to my time in the Clinton administration when we were concerned about Iraq. I believed, on the basis of 10 years of following it, data that we'd seen, his deception, his denial, his thwarting of the UN. I believed it in my core that he had it.
O'Reilly then brought aboard Karl Rove, who read quotes from Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Ted Kennedy from the fall of 2002 speaking of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein. Rove further added that "every major intelligence agency in the world, thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."
Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Thursday, May 29, The O'Reilly Factor on FNC:
SCOTT MCCLELLAN, FROM THE MAY 29 TODAY SHOW: I felt like we were rushing into this, but because of my position and my affection for the President, and my belief and trust in he and his advisors, I gave them the benefit of the doubt. And looking back on it and reflecting on it now, I don't I should have.
BILL O'REILLY: Interesting, especially since former President Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, both of whom saw the same intel President Bush did, agreed that Saddam Hussein was a big danger to America. And so did the CIA.
GEORGE TENET, CLIP DATED MAY 1, 2007: Let me say something very clearly to everybody. We believed he had weapons of mass destruction.
O'REILLY: You believed it? Why? Specifically, you.
TENET: I believed it going back to my time in the Clinton administration when we were concerned about Iraq. I believed, on the basis of 10 years of following it, data that we'd seen, his deception, his denial, his thwarting of the UN. I believed it in my core that he had it.
O'REILLY: So let's do some logic here. Why wouldn't Bush, Clinton, Blair, or Scott McClellan, for that matter, believe George Tenet? I would have. If McClellan would have objected to the way the Iraq campaign was handled rather than the motives behind it, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But insinuating some sinister action by the President doesn't hold up, even though the far-left kooks love that.
...
KARL ROVE: Here's Hillary Clinton September, excuse me, October of 2002: "Intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical, biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program."
Here's Vice President Al Gore in September of 2002: "We know that Saddam stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Here's John Kerry in October of 2002: "I will be voting to give the President the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
And finally, Senator Ted Kennedy: "We have known that, for many years, that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction," September of 2002.
And then, Nancy Pelosi: "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' made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Everybody in the West, every major intelligence agency in the world, thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. So the suggestion, that Scott provides no evidence for, that somehow that the information or the intelligence was dummied up in 2002 is simply incorrect.
...
O'REILLY: And the other thing that convinced me was British intelligence, and the captured documents in Iraq that actually said Saddam Hussein told his own generals, for his own reasons, wanting to create paranoia and things like that, that he did WMDs.
ROVE: We know that in the moments before Baghdad falls, literally the hours before Baghdad falls, his commanders are talking to each other saying, "When are we going to
O'REILLY: Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Let's go get them.
ROVE: "When are we going to be able to use them?" And, look, we know now why this happened. He wanted the world to think that he had these weapons because it made him look strong in the neighborhood and big at home. And we also, we now have two reports, the Duelfer report and the Kay report, which both say after the fact that he was spending vast sums of money to keep together the experts and the dual use facilities so that when the West lost interest in this and the UN sanctions failed-
O'REILLY: He could reconstitute.
ROVE: -he could reconstitute easily.
—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.




KARL ROVE: Here's Hillary Clinton September, excuse me, October of 2002: "Intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical, biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program."














Editor at Large
Comments Policy
WMB
May 30, 2008 - 06:23 ET by kilrodHow do you force the msm to acknowledge and repeat these facts/comments??
kilrod
This is an illustration why
May 30, 2008 - 06:34 ET by MidAmericaThis is an illustration why FOX and O'Reilly are number one in the ratings.
definition of WMD??
May 30, 2008 - 07:17 ET by mom_roxIs the definition of WMD limited to nuclear weapons? NBers, please reply.
We KNOW that Saddam Hussein possessed and used chemical weapons against his own countrymen in the Al-Anfal campaign which killed an ~180,000 Iraqis. From my viewpoint, that was a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
So, I maintain that Saddam Hussein did have WMD's. We can quibble on the nuances, but mass killing is still mass killing.
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944
In reply to mom_rox
May 30, 2008 - 07:51 ET by americaneagleWMD has always been taken to mean chemical and biological agents that have the capacity to wreak destruction on large numbers of people at one time. It was only when we did not find a nuclear bomb in the Iraqi desert that the left redefined the term to mean nuclear weaponry only; mustard gas, sarin gas, and other biological weapons ARE WMD's to everyone but the left.
Is the definition of WMD
May 30, 2008 - 07:54 ET by general companyIs the definition of WMD limited to nuclear weapons?
No, chemical and biological as well
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
ABC Warfare. A =
May 30, 2008 - 07:58 ET by NL207ABC Warfare.
A = atomic.
B= bacteriological
C= Chemical.
Saddam possessed the latter two. He used the third. He may have used the second, but to my knowledge, this is unproven. He sought to possess the first.
Thanks all
May 30, 2008 - 11:10 ET by mom_roxAE, GC and NL - Thank you for the feedback and insight.
This was a great
May 30, 2008 - 07:59 ET by general companyThis was a great interview with Rove, he also talked about Plame and Wilson and Katrina and a few other things he and Bush have been needlessly beat up for.
Then after Rove he went on a rant about nbc, I hadn't seen him this animated in a long time. Was some fun, looking forward to the follow up Brad
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I was just going to mention...
May 30, 2008 - 08:30 ET by americaneagleI was just going to mention BOR's rant about NBC! Boy, this thing with him and NBC/MSNBC is getting pretty heated; he really blasted them and went after the myth of Tim Russert as a balanced journalist. He also pointed out that there is no real difference between what goes on at NBC and at MSNBC since the same group of lefties run both places. That was CLASSIC!!!
Intelligence consistent from Clinton to Bush 43
May 30, 2008 - 09:16 ET by ArminiusDemocrats and their allies in the media are claiming that Scott McClellan’s new book confirms that the Bush administration deliberately lied about Saddam’s WMD. I think it’s important to keep this issue in its proper perspective.
For more than a decade prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, there was a bipartisan, multi-administration, and multinational consensus that Iraq had WMD. “The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration,” said Sen. Hillary Clinton in 2004. “It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.”
Former Sen. John Edwards echoed Clinton in 2007: “Because what happened was the information that we got on the intelligence committee was, was relatively consistent with what I was getting from former Clinton administration officials.”
I have put together an informational Web site at www.sinsofthehusband.com* that includes dozens of Clinton administration documents. These documents prove there were no differences between what the Clinton and Bush administrations said regarding Saddam’s WMD.
If the Democrats and the media want to continue with the “Bush lied” narrative, it is dishonest to omit the fact that those “lies” started before Bush became president.
Sources:
Clinton quote: http://www.cnn.com/2...
Edwards quote: http://www.msnbc.msn...
* There are no items for sale on my web site. This is strictly an informational site.
O'Reilly/Russert
May 30, 2008 - 09:34 ET by iveseenitallO'Reilly implied that Russert, if he any integrity, would resign from NBC. "I would", he said. He also said that Russert stays "for the big bucks". Nice going, Bill. Russert is just one of the many phonys on the left. Now they want America to elect the biggest hypocrite of them all --Barry Sotero (a.ka. Barack H. Obama).
NEVER, NEVER trust a "liberal"
WMD's - they all believed in their core.
May 30, 2008 - 13:07 ET by Gary HallWMD's - they all believed in their core.. that Saddam had WMD's and was a threat - they still believed it in 2002 and 2003, and they are on record in stating that belief - something that the MSM did their damn best to keep from the public.
The list includes Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Sec, William Cohen (of "they have enough neve agent to kill every person on the face of the earth," fame), Sen. John Edwards.. must I go on. (;~/
What?
May 31, 2008 - 14:13 ET by wdhorningIt seems like the end of these nut cases will never cease. If Tenet made it clear to the President and to the Congress that the threats were real and were serious, then who could have possibly thought differently? The world had given Sadam 10 years to "come clean" and all he did was convince the world he still had tons and tons of WMD (though personally, I think if he did have any, it ended up in Syria).
Not only that, but a careful reading of the War Resolution for Iraq, Oct 2002, showed there were actual more than 20 reasons for war with Iraq, everyone sufficient to justify war.
Clearly Scott is out to make a buck with sensationalism, since virtually nothing he writes about even resembles truth.