Bush and Officials Lied leading up to Iraq war

[Alpha1]

In that case, they should say "I HAVE NO DOUBT"

If I am speaking, then the I is understood unless I specifically point out otherwise.....and if the I
isn't there it would seem fairly stupid of someone to assume I am referring to everyone in the world or anyone other than myself....

Its similar to when Al Gore said,

"WE KNOW that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country"

Or when Kennedy said,

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction".

......they certainly mean others along with themselves, but we can't possibly guess who the we or the they refer to....

In Bushs case you assuming he is referring to others because of a perceived omission...

In either case you can't assume to know more than what is exactly quoted...

 

[Alpha1]

An opinion? Not when it's used to lead this country into war, I'm afraid. They can express their opinions, but should label it as such if that's the case. Or, more intelligent, give facts and let people decide on their own whether they want to support his agenda or agree with his opinion.

Oh right, if they'd been candid, no one would have supported them.

I see you haven't specified this rant as an opinion....am I to assume it something other than your opinion because you didn't label it as such....

 

[Alpha1]

An opinion? Not when it's used to lead this country into war, I'm afraid. They can express their opinions, but should label it as such if that's the case. Or, more intelligent, give facts and let people decide on their own whether they want to support his agenda or agree with his opinion.

Oh right, if they'd been candid, no one would have supported them.

Send all your bitches, rants, and other bullshit to:

Biden, Cleland, Clinton, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Edwards, Feinstein, Harkin,

Hollings, Kerry, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Reid, Rockefeller, Schumer, Toricelli, etc.

These are just some of the BIG NAME leaders in the Democratic Senate that helped pass the War Resolution....without their support, there would be no war.....

 

[DeadCanDance]

Like I told MM...
Cheney and Bush ARE allowed to state their personal beliefs from time to time....
Everything they utter doesn't have to have been expressed by someone else or a conclusion of the CIA or NIE or anyone else .....sometimes people just express what THEY BELIEVE... be it right or wrong...

I’ve never said that the BushCo. exaggerations, specifically over Iraq’s alleged acquisition of bio/chem. weapons were that egregious. Most professionals judged that Iraq had some bio/chem. weapon capability. The size and scope of the stockpiles were always subject to debate. Stating that there was “NO DOUBT” saddam possessed bio/chem. Weapons wasn’t too bad of a lie.

The lies that were really egregious, and lead us into war, were the lies about what Saddam would do with bio/chem. weapons; whether or not he had a nuke program; and his alleged collaborative ties with al qaeda.

We certainly weren’t going to invade Iraq over some mustard gas and sarin. Bio/chem. Weapons aren’t that big of a strategic threat. They’re barely a tactical military threat, and are only useful on the battlefield under certain conditions.

The exaggerations about nukes and al qaeda were far more insidious, and untruthful. The fact is, the intelligence community expressed significant skepticism that Saddam would ever us WMD on us, or share them with al qaeda, and would probably only possibly do so if he were invaded and attacked by us. And the nature of the relationship between saddam and al qaeda was always subject to debate and skepticism. Most professionals had a hard time finding much in the way of evidence, that a secular socialist regime would collaborate with fundamentalist religious nuts. Nuts who were as bent on overthrowing secular arab regimes and they were in attacking US interests.

In addition, by March 2003, the lies about iraq’s nuclear weapons program were effectively debunked. There was always doubt about it, and months of intrusive IAEA inspections had, by march 2003, found zero evidence of a nuclear program.

 

[maineman]

It is not stupid to assume that, when Bush is talking about the intelligence reports available to him concerning Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's, and he says "there is no doubt", he is referring to that collective body of intelligence. If he himself wanted to express his personal opinion, "I have no doubt" is the correct phrase.

 

[Alpha1]

I’ve never said that the BushCo. exaggerations, specifically over Iraq’s alleged acquisition of bio/chem. weapons were that egregious. Most professionals judged that Iraq had some bio/chem. weapon capability. The size and scope of the stockpiles were always subject to debate. Stating that there was “NO DOUBT” saddam possessed bio/chem. Weapons wasn’t too bad of a lie.

I gotta agree to a degree.... I too was taken in by the 'lies'
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.
President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraqs weapons of mass destruction program. President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. Madeline Albright Feb. 18, 1998

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983. Sandy Berger, National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998

We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraqs refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs. Letter to President Clinton, signed by: Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

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 has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) December 16, 1998

Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continue
There is no doubt that & Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. s to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies. Letter to President Bush, Signed by
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them. Sen. Carl Levin (D,MI) Sept. 19, 2002

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
Iraqs search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D,MA) 9/2702

We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons. Sen. Robert Byrd (D,WV)10/3/02

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the Authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly
arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. Sen. John F. Kerry (D,MA) 10/9/02



The lies that were really egregious, and lead us into war, were the lies about what Saddam would do with bio/chem. weapons; whether or not he had a nuke program; and his alleged collaborative ties with al qaeda.

And here to I have to agree to a degree....
Lies about a nuke program and nuke weapons? Again I was taken in.....

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years & We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D,WV)10/10/02

He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. Rep. Henry Waxman (D,CA) 10/10/02

And the ties to OBL

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members & It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Sen Hillary Clinton, (D,NY) 10/10/02


We certainly weren’t going to invade Iraq over some mustard gas and sarin. Bio/chem. Weapons aren’t that big of a strategic threat. They’re barely a tactical military threat, and are only useful on the battlefield under certain conditions.

The exaggerations about nukes and al qaeda were far more insidious, and untruthful. The fact is, the intelligence community expressed significant skepticism that Saddam would ever us WMD on us, or share them with al qaeda, and would probably only possibly do so if he were invaded and attacked by us. And the nature of the relationship between saddam and al qaeda was always subject to debate and skepticism. Most professionals had a hard time finding much in the way of evidence, that a secular socialist regime would collaborate with fundamentalist religious nuts. Nuts who were as bent on overthrowing secular arab regimes and they were in attacking US interests.

In addition, by March 2003, the lies about iraq’s nuclear weapons program were effectively debunked. There was always doubt about it, and months of intrusive IAEA inspections had, by march 2003, found zero evidence of a nuclear program.

Yes...Clarks assertains that AQ and Iraq were meeting were as wrong in 1998 and they are today....

 

[Alpha1]

It is not stupid to assume that, when Bush is talking about the intelligence reports available to him concerning Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's, and he says "there is no doubt", he is referring to that collective body of intelligence. If he himself wanted to express his personal opinion, "I have no doubt" is the correct phrase.

There is only one time when Bush is talking about the intelligence reports and he DOES NOT SAY, "there is no doubt"....he does say, "the intell leaves no doubt'
and that is correct..as shown in the NIE report...
but lets not repeat it over and over...suffice it to say...its beyond your ability to understand his exact words...you insist on mis-stating them over and over...

Other times he expresses no doubt is about what he believes unless he mentions others by name...ie, the CIA, or 'intell', or makes some other reference....

 

[maineman]

There is only one time when Bush is talking about the intelligence reports and he DOES NOT SAY, "there is no doubt"....he does say, "the intell leaves no doubt'
and that is correct..as shown in the NIE report...
but lets not repeat it over and over...suffice it to say...its beyond your ability to understand his exact words...you insist on mis-stating them over and over...

Other times he expresses no doubt is about what he believes unless he mentions others by name...ie, the CIA, or 'intell', or makes some other reference....

oh stop it...the unclassified summary shows no doubt... your own link referred to caveats and qualifiers throughout the classified section that were ignored by the administration. Clearly, the intell left plenty of doubt that he chose to disregard...and LIE about.

 

[Alpha1]

oh stop it...the unclassified summary shows no doubt... your own link referred to caveats and qualifiers throughout the classified section that were ignored by the administration. Clearly, the intell left plenty of doubt that he chose to disregard...and LIE about.

There certainly was plenty of doubt about a variety of things...
I've listed them for you before.....

almost the only issue not mentioned with a caveat or qualifier was that Iraq possessed BW and CW....
and AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT WAS CLEARLY STATED.........

BAGHDAD HAS BW AND CW....

clear enough for you yet ? If not, give it up....everyone else gets it....

 

[Alpha1]

DCD says....

I’ve never said that the BushCo. exaggerations, specifically over Iraq’s alleged acquisition of bio/chem. weapons were that egregious. Most professionals judged that Iraq had some bio/chem. weapon capability. The size and scope of the stockpiles were always subject to debate. Stating that there was “NO DOUBT” saddam possessed bio/chem. Weapons wasn’t too bad of a lie.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Most professionals judged that Iraq had some bio/chem. weapon capability. ?
MOST PROFESSIONALS believed it....

Thats an understatement if I ever heard one.....

As a matter of record, there was a large number of UN resolutions (covering, what 10-12+ years)concerning Iraqs possession of WMD....nothing ambiguous about Saddam having these weapons...resolutions passed by UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT demanding that Saddam destroy these weapons....

As a matter of being realistic...one could say, "There was no fuckin' doubt that most if not all UN countrys leaders believed Saddam had WMD.....

Referring to that generally unanimous belief as a lie just shows how narrow-minded some people can be....but do carry on...both you and mm....

 

[maineman]

There certainly was plenty of doubt about a variety of things...
I've listed them for you before.....

almost the only issue not mentioned with a caveat or qualifier was that Iraq possessed BW and CW....
and AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT WAS CLEARLY STATED.........

BAGHDAD HAS BW AND CW....

clear enough for you yet ? If not, give it up....everyone else gets it....

so...tell me when you got to see the classified NIE. Did I miss that? Because if you have not seen it, how can you possibly know what caveats and qualifiers are present there?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

so...tell me when you got to see the classified NIE. Did I miss that? Because if you have not seen it, how can you possibly know what caveats and qualifiers are present there?

Good question, explain to us HOW you know.

 

[Alpha1]

so...tell me when you got to see the classified NIE. Did I miss that? Because if you have not seen it, how can you possibly know what caveats and qualifiers are present there?

Nope..As you, I didn't get to see the real thing...but I do have some old notes from the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar intelligence. There was alot of gripes about the differences between the classified and public versionsof that NIE report.....the Committee compared the two at the time and I gave you some of gripes about the quantity of ABC , the quality, the aerial unmanned drones, aerial sprayers and missiles, range and accuracy, etc, threat level of various weapons..the threat to mainland USA.....but I saw no caveat about Iraqs possession of WMD, ....you seem to ignore that from early 1990's well into 2002 it was pretty much accepted fact that Saddam had these weapons..hence the UN resolutions (unanimous) .....there really was very few that didn't buy into that belief....and the fact that this belief was in error is irrelevant....

 

[maineman]

Nope..As you, I didn't get to see the real thing...but I do have some old notes from the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar intelligence. There was alot of gripes about the differences between the classified and public versionsof that NIE report.....the Committee compared the two at the time and I gave you some of gripes about the quantity of ABC , the quality, the aerial unmanned drones, aerial sprayers and missiles, range and accuracy, etc, threat level of various weapons..the threat to mainland USA.....but I saw no caveat about Iraqs possession of WMD, ....you seem to ignore that from early 1990's well into 2002 it was pretty much accepted fact that Saddam had these weapons..hence the UN resolutions (unanimous) .....there really was very few that didn't buy into that belief....and the fact that this belief was in error is irrelevant....

so...because you have "some notes"...because you "saw no caveat about Iraq's possession of WMD's"... well there... that is all the proof anyone needs, I guess. IO guess that is just as good as having seen the classified version. I guess if you'd told Bush that, he would have every reason in the world to give the impression of absolute certainty. [/sarcasm off]

 

[maineman]

Good question, explain to us HOW you know.

All I know is what I have heard and read regarding the comments of analysts who have stated that there were, in fact plenty of caveats. How do you "know" there were not...because Bush and Cheney told you so?

from above:

"On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "

 

[RetiredGySgt]

All I know is what I have heard and read regarding the comments of analysts who have stated that there were, in fact plenty of caveats. How do you "know" there were not...because Bush and Cheney told you so?

from above:

"On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "

There ya go using a quote out of context. The part that he used that they never said was that there was positive proof that Iraq would use them on us. The NIE is clear that he HAD them but had caveats about him USING them against us. So now back to some actual evidence... you do not get to claim a classified document says what you want with out being able to produce it. I have produced the part that was declassified that clearly explains why the Intel people said what they did about Cheney's remarks. Again though even then Cheny could just be mistaken and have not actually lied. Again if HE believed what he said to be true it is NOT a lie.

 

[maineman]

There ya go using a quote out of context. The part that he used that they never said was that there was positive proof that Iraq would use them on us. The NIE is clear that he HAD them but had caveats about him USING them against us. So now back to some actual evidence... you do not get to claim a classified document says what you want with out being able to produce it. I have produced the part that was declassified that clearly explains why the Intel people said what they did about Cheney's remarks. Again though even then Cheny could just be mistaken and have not actually lied. Again if HE believed what he said to be true it is NOT a lie.

again...if he believed it, he should have phrased it that way. He did not.

 

[Paulie]

you seem to ignore that from early 1990's well into 2002 it was pretty much accepted fact that Saddam had these weapons..

Where'd he get them?

 

[Alpha1]

The sad fact seems to be....he didn't have them.....

From what we have learned since 2002, it would be a rational judgment to come to, if you concluded Iraq's WMD threat was destroyed as far back as 1991/1992

Their is no doubt (in my mind) that Clinton ranted and raved about WMD for a few years about the danger Saddam posed to his neighbors and to the US.

Their is no doubt (in my mind) that Bush ranted and raved for the next couple of years about WMD and the danger Saddam posed to his neighbors and to the US.

You can be a hack and blame only Bush for the war..or you look at the bigger picture and see that this war was in the making over both administrations, and that it took the cooperation of both partys to take the final step....

And there was no real threat from Saddam during that entire time...yet UN resolutions were being unanimously passed demanding Saddam disarm....
We, along with France, Germany, and England were demanding Saddam disarm.
and he had little to nothing to disarm....
old rusty artillery shells, with degraded, useless Sarin...
Harmless Scuds, unreliable, with little range....
Unmanned aerial drones, in reality little more than model airplanes, toys
Some radio-active material, that was probably more dangerous to himself than others.....yet he convinced the world....

I don't take to calling the Clinton Administration liars over this crap
I don't take to calling the Bush Administration liars over this crap
I can't claim the entire UN lied in order to pass resolutions against Iraq
I don't think the entire intell org. of France, Germany, England and the US became liars to badmouth Saddam....
and that is what you would have to conclude if you insist on the lies crap...
Everyone would have had to lie...and that is beyond belief....

It is more likely Saddam conned us all...our leaders, our intell, our medias, etc.
and that in itself is damning....we were bombarded with the dangers and threat of Saddam for years, and during those, years he had nothing....

 

[DeadCanDance]

The sad fact seems to be....he didn't have them.....

From what we have learned since 2002, it would be a rational judgment to come to, if you concluded Iraq's WMD threat was destroyed as far back as 1991/1992

Their is no doubt (in my mind) that Clinton ranted and raved about WMD for a few years about the danger Saddam posed to his neighbors and to the US.

Their is no doubt (in my mind) that Bush ranted and raved for the next couple of years about WMD and the danger Saddam posed to his neighbors and to the US.

You can be a hack and blame only Bush for the war..or you look at the bigger picture and see that this war was in the making over both administrations, and that it took the cooperation of both partys to take the final step....

And there was no real threat from Saddam during that entire time...yet UN resolutions were being unanimously passed demanding Saddam disarm....
We, along with France, Germany, and England were demanding Saddam disarm.
and he had little to nothing to disarm....
old rusty artillery shells, with degraded, useless Sarin...
Harmless Scuds, unreliable, with little range....
Unmanned aerial drones, in reality little more than model airplanes, toys
Some radio-active material, that was probably more dangerous to himself than others.....yet he convinced the world....

I don't take to calling the Clinton Administration liars over this crap
I don't take to calling the Bush Administration liars over this crap
I can't claim the entire UN lied in order to pass resolutions against Iraq
I don't think the entire intell org. of France, Germany, England and the US became liars to badmouth Saddam....
and that is what you would have to conclude if you insist on the lies crap...
Everyone would have had to lie...and that is beyond belief....

It is more likely Saddam conned us all...our leaders, our intell, our medias, etc.
and that in itself is damning....we were bombarded with the dangers and threat of Saddam for years, and during those, years he had nothing....

....we were bombarded with the dangers and threat of Saddam for years, and during those, years he had nothing...


Therefore, you should down on your knees, grovel, and apologize to people like Maineman, me, Barak Obama, Howard Dean and others who told you in 2002 that Iraq did not appear to be a threat worthy of invasion, and that the claims about nukes, ties to al qaeda, and wmd were dubious at worst, unproven at best.

I'm sure maineman recalls, as do I, being called pro-saddam traitors for urging caution and skepticism back in 2002.