I second the question. Who’s lying? Surely the Bush administration wouldn’t.
:rolleyes:
Oops…the link
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-03forum03jul03,0,2035158.story?coll=sfla-news-opinion
Finally, a good question. 
I have no idea.
Holy crap, Reeder. Have you just run out of links to mindlessly link in GD? Just throwing unattributed quotes and emoticons out there now?
I suppose it would unfair of me to tax your petite-sized brain, by asking you to read the actual transcript of the Cheney interview. It is obvious to anyone with a brain that Cheney meant “…reconstituted nuclear weapons program”. Of course, I doubt it will be obvious to you.
Actually, this bogus misquote has popped up a dozen times on this board in the last couple of weeks. I’m sure Reeder has seen the debunking of that particular quote more than once.
Why keep bringing it up?
Well, Brutus, in his defense :eek:, this time he didn’t just parse something, it was actually the whole shebang.
Based upon the editorial he linked to it was a reasonable question.
Which means that Saddam would have had the means (if the program was in fact efficient) to make nuclear weapons. Ashcroft quote seems like he’s saying that they didn’t even have the means.
But yes, this thread is a bit of a stretch.
How is this unclear ? Cheney talks about Saddam’s long standing nuke programs, and mentions that he believes that they have been successful in building atom bombs. Anyone without an advanced degree in apologetics would take this as Rummy’s meaning. Did he quickly retract or clarify the statement ? Putting extra words in the secretary’s mouth at this late date simply doesn’t cut it.
My understanding is that it’s against the rules to insult people in this forum, so I will refrain from throwing back the insult at you. There is no reason why one should expect Reeder to investigate the original source when his source was seemingly reliable. Now that you’ve provided a link to the original transcript, we can all see that Cheney was not misquoted:
While Cheney may have avoided saying that he knew for a fact that Iraq already had nuclear weapons, we definitely suggested that it was likely that Iraq had them. This directly contradicts Rumsfeld’s statement that no one “suggested” that Iraq had nuclear weapons.
Q: How the hell do you ‘reconstitute’ a weapon?
A: You don’t, but weapons programs can be reconstituted.
So you’ve got your nuke right? The United Nations takes away your nuke. Clearly, your nuclear program is up the proverbial creek without its atomic paddle.
Or, its just possible that the manufacture/materials/test data which allowed you to build the original nuclear warhead are STILL IN YOUR POSSESSION…
…and thus you reconstitute your nuclear weapon.
The transcript is quite clear, IMCO, and Cheney said “Iraq has reconstituted nuclear weapons” which I, and the average American, which is the key here, would also take to mean that Iraq is or is on the verge of nuclear capability.
But the United Nations didn’t take away my nuke, since I didn’t have one. At best, the took/shutdown elements of my program to create a nuke. So, when the UN leaves, I’ll reconsititute the program to build a nuke.
‘Reconsituting’ implies that something is being rebuilt. As in, a nuke was taken apart, and is being put back together. It doesn’t make sense.
Lets use a simplified analogy:
I have many of the pieces of a ‘Snoopy Snow Cone’ machine, in direct violation of UN regulations. I have yet to make snow cones with it, since I haven’t perfected the tricky art of freezing water (yet!). Also, I don’t have the little Snoopy-head/cap thingee that you use to push in the ice-cubes. So while I couldn’t, from a technical perspective, have yet made delicious and refreshing snow cones, clearly I intend to do so, as soon as I have the technical capabilities.
Then you (the ISCA inspector), come along. In a mad tizzy, I hide the flavored powder here, the handle there, etc. You come along, find nothing, and off you go.
When I put the device back together, I am reconstituting my snow cone manufactering capability. I can’t reconstitute any snow cones, since I did not have the capability of making them in the first place.
Hrmmm…My analogy doesn’t work as well as I would have liked it to. Still, it is painfully obvious that Cheney mispoke, and intended to say “…reconstituted nuclear weapons program” Common sense dictates that if Cheney thought that Iraq had actual and usable nuclear weapons, that we would have heard a helluva lot more about them, rather than one misspoken statement.
Anyhow, dutchboy208, in your example a nuke is ‘being built’, not ‘reconstituted’.
I will leave the amusing concept of a Snoopy Snow Cone Maker being obtained in violation of UN regs aside for now… 
The idea that the Vice-President of the United States might misspeak a statement which as read is a clear accusation of Iraqi nuclear weapons possession is neither here nor there. Fact is, Americans bought this war wholesale because they were led to believe Iraqi nuclear capability was imminent, if not already the case. IF Cheney had “misspoken” on an issue of such clear gravity a retraction should have been made, especially given that controversy over this war hinged in large part over whether Iraq “might one day be nuclear capable again” or “was nuclear capable”. Anything less would be a cynical effort to pretend our government was spouting something different prior to the war than it truly was. You can’t have this one both ways- either Cheney made a statement he should have retracted, or Rumsfeld is dissembling.
It was always a weapons “program”! Always! And we have proof! Achmed Chalabi has a cousin who’s brother in laws sister works as a hairdresser next to one of the Presidential palaces in Baghdad and she says she heard that Saddam bin Laden said “Boy, I wish we had nukes!” I don’t know how much more proof you need!
Besides, this is just the Democrats trying to distract you from the real issues! Did you know Howard Dean has a plan to force gay marriage on Eagle Scouts!
I also find that pretty damn amusing.
Did Cheney state unequivocally that, in his opinion, Iraq had nuclear weapons? Yes. Brutus is saying that he misspoke, but I expect the Vice President to be a little more careful when discussing life-and-death matters that can change the course of world history. Did he suggest that Iraq had nuclear weapons? Absolutely positively without a doubt. That’s the issue here. Now that it’s been revealed that he had no basis for that declared opinion, they’re claiming he never made it.
I’m going with the silent, but implied, “program” argument. Reconstituted nuclear weapons would be impossible, as Iraq never possesed them. I watched the administration very closely during the prelude to war and I never got the impression that they were claiming actual nuclear weapons. Chemical and biological were viewed as almost sure things: Saddam having used one, and the US having “armed Saddam” with the other–check any leftwing site.
Say… does anybody remember how much stuff Snoopy had in his doghouse? We know there must be an underground bunker. And the house could also fly, so we must assume his Snow Cone Program has gone mobile.
The evidence strongly suggests we must bomb Garfield and Family Circus.
Ari Fleischer already made it clear that when Bush says “weapon”, it is a synonym for “weapons program.” The two are the same for teh Bush Admin.
It appears that the Bush admin has a fair amount of plausible deniability. It comes into play often. The more it comes into play though, the thinnner the plausibility becomes.
If there had only been the aluminum tubes, or if there’d only been the one million pounds of Nigerien uranium, or if there’d only been the al Qaeda-Hussein alliance, or if there’d only been the concern over Iraqi MiGs spraying the US with anthrax, or if there’d only been the out of date photos of Iraqi big rigs, or if there’d only been Cheney’s comment saying “weapon” instead of weapons program, then I’d be more inclined to accept the plausibility of the Bush Admin’s denials.
However, all of these things and things I’ve left out, when taken together certainly seem to be indistinguishable from a concerted effort to be misleading.
Maybe someone here can make the distinction and will be so kind as to do so and explain how one goes about making such a distinction.
When I read the OP, the first thing I thought a “reconstituted” nuke might be was one rebuilt from a pieces of warheads from another country’s weapons program, like perhaps Russia’s.