The Bush Admin. Never Lied To Justify the Invasion of Iraq.

[candycorn]

Dum Dum, they are not accusations...

KIDS is what was edited mullet...

And I made up the edit the second time...

Hell I would be jealous of Texas too, but you don't have to make it so obvious...

The only place that is jealous of Texas is latrines in Mississippi.

Is that it? "Latrines in Mississippi" someone needs to because your crap is so

Your cartoon laden juvenile outbursts are about what I expected. When you have nothing else, I guess your self respect is a small price to pay. It's okay...nobody else respects you either. Am I right? Of course I am.

 

[MikeK]

No bid contracts are pretty much a requirement for defense related work.

Because no sane private company is going to agree to a competitive bidding, fixed price contract when the U.S. federal govt. can radically change the specifications of defense related projects at will.

Just look at Northrop at the B-2 bomber.

Northrop had been working on the B-2 nearly a decade when in 1986 (IIRC) the Pentagon suddenly told them they wanted it to have low level capability which required a massive redesign and a huge increase in costs.

Which is why most defense contracts like that are "cost plus" (guaranteed profit margin).

While there are expedient exceptions to this rule, the rule is what I'm concerned with. And here are just two examples of what I mean:

(Excerpt)

1) A consortium of Western oil companies -- the very definition of Big Oil -- is on the verge of receiving no-bid contracts in Iraq, giving them access to one of the most sought-after prizes in the petroleum industry, according to The New York Times. Can it be mere coincidence that the leading companies in the deal -- ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Total -- are the very same companies that Saddam Hussein threw out when he nationalized the Iraqi oil industry more than three decades ago?ial Black"WASHINGTON – The FBI has begun investigating whether the Pentagon improperly awarded no-bid contracts to Halliburton, seeking an interview with a top Army contracting officer and collecting documents from several government offices.

The line of inquiry expands an earlier FBI investigation into whether Halliburton overcharged taxpayers more than $60 million for fuel in Iraq, and it elevates to a criminal matter the question of whether the Bush administration showed favoritism to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company.]

Halliburton's no-bid contracts for work in Iraq get FBI scrutiny | The San Diego Union-Tribune




2) A consortium of Western oil companies -- the very definition of Big Oil -- is on the verge of receiving no-bid contracts in Iraq, giving them access to one of the most sought-after prizes in the petroleum industry, according to The New York Times. Can it be mere coincidence that the leading companies in the deal -- ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Total -- are the very same companies that Saddam Hussein threw out when he nationalized the Iraqi oil industry more than three decades ago?

Contracts for Big Oil in Iraq Confirm Earlier Suspicions, as I See It | uexpress


And there are many more examples of such suspicious activity which the Obama Administration has methodically ignored.

 

[JQPublic1]

G. W. Bush may not have used accurate information at the time of the invasion.

Oh, there is NO doubt that he did NOT use accurate information when the invasion was launched. That is the crucial point that I have been adamantly trying to put across to anyone willing to read my posts. The RW elements here have been very successful in creating distractions by invasive off topic allusions to Clinton, FDR or Obama. Meanwhile, the key evidence that gets right down to proving Bush lied has been posted repeatedly, only to be lost in a blitz of distractions. Senator Bob Graham ( he was chairman of the Intelligence committee at the time) was instrumental in uncovering Bush’s deception and lie.

The reason for the invasion may never be known.

Bush publically stated one personal reason for invading Iraq and that was because Hussein tried to kill his father. There were undoubtedly other reasons, but nothing trumps a public admission.

A question should be asked; but will not be answered. Did he know the information he had could have been wrong?

You haven’t been following this thread have you? Otherwise you would have seen the answer to your question numerous times; complete with links!

 

[AntiParty]

AND since when do we go to war with a country because a hand full of people attack an entire Country?

mmmmm...............that reminds me..................

............what curriculum do they teach at the School of the America's?

Your question confuses me. It's broad, open and clearly you think there is a BIG issue with it.

Perhaps you should just get on with the issue and stop asking questions about it?

 

[g4racer]

As our intel agencies are not to be trusted information. It appears that he was seeking a justification to invade. The first reason may had been considered false information, the second reason may have been considered false information. By that point he should have questioned the accuracy. This gives him the benefit of doubt, for receiving false information; but when the false information continues no, he knew.

 

[Billo_Really]

Your question confuses me. It's broad, open and clearly you think there is a BIG issue with it.

Yeah, I think it's a very big issue. We justified invading Afghanistan, because they "harbored" terrorists, yet at the School of the America's, we "taught" terrorism to South American contra's in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Chili.

Perhaps you should just get on with the issue and stop asking questions about it?

I'll ask any god-damn question I fucking feel like asking, fuckhead!

 

[bayoubill]

The Bush Administration Never Lied In Order to Justify the Invasion of Iraq

The entire mantra of “Bush lied, people died” has been the refrain of critics of the Iraq War and the Bush Admin. For years. It has been repeatedly used in an attempt to destroy the Bush Admin. And delegitimize the U.S. led invasion for years.
Allowing this to go unchallenged was one of the greatest mistakes of the Bush Admin.
And on two separate levels the claim simply does not hold up.

1) Before the U.S. led invasion, President Bush questioned CIA Director George Tenet about the evidence supporting the existence of WMDs in Iraq. According to the Bob Woodward book, Tenet exclaimed that it was a “slam dunk” in favor of evidence showing WMDs.
What was President Bush supposed to do? Tenet was a Clinton appointee with no reason to lie or suck up to Bush.
The only answer I’ve ever been given is that Bush should’ve looked at the intelligence sources himself. This is completely ridiculous. A president does not go around interviewing Iraqi dissidents.
President Bush would’ve been foolish not to take the positive declarations of the CIA Director at face value.

2) Lying about WMDs in Iraq makes no logical sense. We’re supposed to believe that the Bush admin. Lied to justify an invasion…that would inevitably reveal that lie to the world.
The ONLY explanation I’ve heard regarding this from the “Bush lied” people is that “they figured the war would be so popular that no one would care”. Which is ridiculous beyond belief.

Were there WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion? Almost certainly not. But the CIA Director said there were and any president would be foolish not to act on that claim.

If your oncologist insists that you have cancer do you ask to see the lab reports yourself and interview the lab techs? Of course not! Probably you schedule surgery or chemo whichever that same doctor recommends.
Were mistakes made during the occupation of Iraq that cost thousands of American lives? Most certainly. But that is another issue that has nothing to do about the legitimacy of the invasion.

Did the Bush admin. Emphasize the stronger parts of their argument in favor of invading? Of course they did! This is what you do when making a case to a jury or to the American people. You have no obligation to argue both sides. There were plenty of opponents of the invasion to argue the other side.

Either way, there is ZERO evidence that the Bush Admin. ever deliberately and knowingly promoted false information to justify the invasion of Iraq.

I agree... Bush didn't lie regarding Iraq...

he was simply the world's biggest dumbfuck...

 

[KNB]

The Bush administration lied to invade Iraq.

U.S. Intelligence and Iraq WMD
Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction
The Record on CURVEBALL
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I:*The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART II: Was There Even a Decision?
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART III: Shaping the Debate

 

[bravoactual]

So when the shrub out and out lied about Saddam attempting to purchase vast amounts uranium, he was not attempting to justify his Immoral, Illegal and Unconstitutional Invasion of Iraq?

What have you been smoking and where can I get some.

 

[Theowl32]

So when the shrub out and out lied about Saddam attempting to purchase vast amounts uranium, he was not attempting to justify his Immoral, Illegal and Unconstitutional Invasion of Iraq?

What have you been smoking and where can I get some.

With your best answer, explain in detail why Bush was never brought up on war crimes? Why didn't Obama conduct an independent investigation? Why did Obama attempt to expand troops in Iraq? Why did Clinton sign the Iraq Liberation Act for wmds before Bush took office? Where did Syria get those chemical weapons they have been using? Why do you bloviated hypocritical assholes who claim to care so much for the oppressed and tortured wish saddam and his sons were still in power?

Do any of you liberals have any control over how hypocritical, how phony, how pathetic, how arrogant or how bloviated you allow yourselves to get?

 

[KNB]

You're argument is shit because of declassified Bush administration documents.

The Bush administration lied about the threat posed by Iraq in order to invade. No one is upset that Saddam Hussein is dead. Everyone is upset that the Bush administration lied to the entire world in order to kill Saddam Hussein, along with tens of thousands of civilians.

Bush lied to invade Iraq. He wasn't tried for war crimes because every other American President would face the same scrutiny, be found guilty, and then the American empire would crumble.

Obama's corruption doesn't change the fact that Bush lied to invade Iraq.

 

[Slyhunter]

You're argument is shit because of declassified Bush administration documents.

The Bush administration lied about the threat posed by Iraq in order to invade. No one is upset that Saddam Hussein is dead. Everyone is upset that the Bush administration lied to the entire world in order to kill Saddam Hussein, along with tens of thousands of civilians.

Bush lied to invade Iraq. He wasn't tried for war crimes because every other American President would face the same scrutiny, be found guilty, and then the American empire would crumble.

Obama's corruption doesn't change the fact that Bush lied to invade Iraq.

Bush didn't lie. He simply repeated information provided to him by others.
Why aren't you just as hard on Susan Rice for her lies?

 

[KNB]

You're argument is shit because of declassified Bush administration documents.

The Bush administration lied about the threat posed by Iraq in order to invade. No one is upset that Saddam Hussein is dead. Everyone is upset that the Bush administration lied to the entire world in order to kill Saddam Hussein, along with tens of thousands of civilians.

Bush lied to invade Iraq. He wasn't tried for war crimes because every other American President would face the same scrutiny, be found guilty, and then the American empire would crumble.

Obama's corruption doesn't change the fact that Bush lied to invade Iraq.

Bush didn't lie. He simply repeated information provided to him by others.

No, he lied. The declassified documents show that. Stop trying to defend him. He lied to invade Iraq and then tortured POWs. Trying to argue against declassified Bush government documents about why America invaded Iraq is like trying to argue against the Pentagon Papers about why America was in Vietnam.

The Bush administration lied to every single American voter, yourself included.

THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I:*The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART II: Was There Even a Decision?
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART III: Shaping the Debate

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Bush Administration Never Lied In Order to Justify the Invasion of Iraq

The entire mantra of “Bush lied, people died” has been the refrain of critics of the Iraq War and the Bush Admin. For years. It has been repeatedly used in an attempt to destroy the Bush Admin. And delegitimize the U.S. led invasion for years.
Allowing this to go unchallenged was one of the greatest mistakes of the Bush Admin.
And on two separate levels the claim simply does not hold up.

1) Before the U.S. led invasion, President Bush questioned CIA Director George Tenet about the evidence supporting the existence of WMDs in Iraq. According to the Bob Woodward book, Tenet exclaimed that it was a “slam dunk” in favor of evidence showing WMDs.
What was President Bush supposed to do? Tenet was a Clinton appointee with no reason to lie or suck up to Bush.
The only answer I’ve ever been given is that Bush should’ve looked at the intelligence sources himself. This is completely ridiculous. A president does not go around interviewing Iraqi dissidents.
President Bush would’ve been foolish not to take the positive declarations of the CIA Director at face value.

2) Lying about WMDs in Iraq makes no logical sense. We’re supposed to believe that the Bush admin. Lied to justify an invasion…that would inevitably reveal that lie to the world.
The ONLY explanation I’ve heard regarding this from the “Bush lied” people is that “they figured the war would be so popular that no one would care”. Which is ridiculous beyond belief.

Were there WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion? Almost certainly not. But the CIA Director said there were and any president would be foolish not to act on that claim.

If your oncologist insists that you have cancer do you ask to see the lab reports yourself and interview the lab techs? Of course not! Probably you schedule surgery or chemo whichever that same doctor recommends.
Were mistakes made during the occupation of Iraq that cost thousands of American lives? Most certainly. But that is another issue that has nothing to do about the legitimacy of the invasion.

Did the Bush admin. Emphasize the stronger parts of their argument in favor of invading? Of course they did! This is what you do when making a case to a jury or to the American people. You have no obligation to argue both sides. There were plenty of opponents of the invasion to argue the other side.

Either way, there is ZERO evidence that the Bush Admin. ever deliberately and knowingly promoted false information to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Methinks the OP's author is 50 years too early to rewrite history. S/He needs to write a memo to the Minister of Truth (aka: PoliticalChic) so that future historical revisionists will know what to write in the Text Books supplied to the 2064 high school freshman class in Texas.

 

[Theowl32]

Your question confuses me. It's broad, open and clearly you think there is a BIG issue with it.

Yeah, I think it's a very big issue. We justified invading Afghanistan, because they "harbored" terrorists, yet at the School of the America's, we "taught" terrorism to South American contra's in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Chili.

Perhaps you should just get on with the issue and stop asking questions about it?

I'll ask any god-damn question I fucking feel like asking, fuckhead!

I wonder why this guy put harbored terrorists in quotation marks?

Is this a truther?

Aren't truthers just weird? Wait.....every liberal is a truther. Is this a permeating syllogism or am I stating truth?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Your question confuses me. It's broad, open and clearly you think there is a BIG issue with it.

Yeah, I think it's a very big issue. We justified invading Afghanistan, because they "harbored" terrorists, yet at the School of the America's, we "taught" terrorism to South American contra's in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Chili.

Perhaps you should just get on with the issue and stop asking questions about it?

I'll ask any god-damn question I fucking feel like asking, fuckhead!

I wonder why this guy put harbored terrorists in quotation marks?

Is this a truther?

Aren't truthers just weird? Wait.....every liberal is a truther. Is this a permeating syllogism or am I stating truth?

"All liberals are truthers"
Some truthers are conservatives
therefore,
Some liberals are conservatives

Methinks your implied syllogism is oxymoronic.

 

[BlindBoo]

You're argument is shit because of declassified Bush administration documents.

The Bush administration lied about the threat posed by Iraq in order to invade. No one is upset that Saddam Hussein is dead. Everyone is upset that the Bush administration lied to the entire world in order to kill Saddam Hussein, along with tens of thousands of civilians.

Bush lied to invade Iraq. He wasn't tried for war crimes because every other American President would face the same scrutiny, be found guilty, and then the American empire would crumble.

Obama's corruption doesn't change the fact that Bush lied to invade Iraq.

Bush didn't lie. He simply repeated information provided to him by others.
Why aren't you just as hard on Susan Rice for her lies?

The propaganda war by the Bush administration to lead the US public opinion on Iraq lasted over a year. It was a monumental. It led to the deaths of over 4 thousand US soldiers and countless Iraqi deaths (not that they didn't matter, we just didn't count um). Meh! He was just repeating information provided by others.......

Susan Rice, who delivered the initial Benghazi talking points to the press, got one wrong, there was no protest that the extremist used as cover before they attack our Consulate, was crucified like she was part of the ones who attacked the building.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Bush lied.

I don't blame his lapdogs for trying to rehabilitate his image - I just blame the people who fall for it.

 

[Kosh]

You're argument is shit because of declassified Bush administration documents.

The Bush administration lied about the threat posed by Iraq in order to invade. No one is upset that Saddam Hussein is dead. Everyone is upset that the Bush administration lied to the entire world in order to kill Saddam Hussein, along with tens of thousands of civilians.

Bush lied to invade Iraq. He wasn't tried for war crimes because every other American President would face the same scrutiny, be found guilty, and then the American empire would crumble.

Obama's corruption doesn't change the fact that Bush lied to invade Iraq.

Bush didn't lie. He simply repeated information provided to him by others.
Why aren't you just as hard on Susan Rice for her lies?

The propaganda war by the Bush administration to lead the US public opinion on Iraq lasted over a year. It was a monumental. It led to the deaths of over 4 thousand US soldiers and countless Iraqi deaths (not that they didn't matter, we just didn't count um). Meh! He was just repeating information provided by others.......

Susan Rice, who delivered the initial Benghazi talking points to the press, got one wrong, there was no protest that the extremist used as cover before they attack our Consulate, was crucified like she was part of the ones who attacked the building.

And the racist far left Obama drone propaganda continues...

 

[Slyhunter]

You're argument is shit because of declassified Bush administration documents.

The Bush administration lied about the threat posed by Iraq in order to invade. No one is upset that Saddam Hussein is dead. Everyone is upset that the Bush administration lied to the entire world in order to kill Saddam Hussein, along with tens of thousands of civilians.

Bush lied to invade Iraq. He wasn't tried for war crimes because every other American President would face the same scrutiny, be found guilty, and then the American empire would crumble.

Obama's corruption doesn't change the fact that Bush lied to invade Iraq.

Bush didn't lie. He simply repeated information provided to him by others.
Why aren't you just as hard on Susan Rice for her lies?

The propaganda war by the Bush administration to lead the US public opinion on Iraq lasted over a year. It was a monumental. It led to the deaths of over 4 thousand US soldiers and countless Iraqi deaths (not that they didn't matter, we just didn't count um). Meh! He was just repeating information provided by others.......

Susan Rice, who delivered the initial Benghazi talking points to the press, got one wrong, there was no protest that the extremist used as cover before they attack our Consulate, was crucified like she was part of the ones who attacked the building.

I wanted to go after Saddam because it was like he was daring us to do something about him. Just like ISIS is doing now.