Bush and Officials Lied leading up to Iraq war

[RetiredGySgt]

and if terrorist attacks against americans and american interests now only count if they happen "on american soil", then please refrain from mentioning the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, and the african embassy attacks. Those weren't on american soil. There was only one attack on american soil in the 1990s by muslim extremists. The exact same number of attacks on american soil during the bush presidency.

And that attack killed 3000? Destroyed a whole section,including at least 3 skyscrapers and 4 Jumbo aircraft, of New York?

Your a retard, a partisan hack, your not even worth the effort to school but it passes the time when you make your ignorant bullshit claims so I respond anyway.

 

[maineman]

And that attack killed 3000? Destroyed a whole section,including at least 3 skyscrapers and 4 Jumbo aircraft, of New York?

Your a retard, a partisan hack, your not even worth the effort to school but it passes the time when you make your ignorant bullshit claims so I respond anyway.

exactly. How many dead Americans as a result of terrorist attacks on American soil during a democrat's watch? How many during a republican's?

 

[DeadCanDance]

And that attack killed 3000? Destroyed a whole section,including at least 3 skyscrapers and 4 Jumbo aircraft, of New York?

Your a retard, a partisan hack, your not even worth the effort to school but it passes the time when you make your ignorant bullshit claims so I respond anyway.

I understand you don't want to address the facts.

There was one attack on american soil on bush's watch, by muslim extremists. There was one attack on clinton's watch, on american soil.

However, The amount of terrorist attacks worldwide against americans and american interests has grown exponentially under your president. Partcularly since your president invaded iraq. These are fact, confirmed by the State Dept. and the CIA. Hard, cold numbers and facts.

Now, if you don't want to count terrorist attacks on american solidiers as terrorist attacks, then you can most certainly stop counting the attacks on the USS Cole and Khobar towar as "terrorist attacks" on clinton's watch.

 

[Paulie]

Does anyone dispute that Saddam had used chemical weapons against the Kurds?(his own people) Does anyone dispute that all major intelligence estimates believed that Iraq had WMD's? Does anyone believe that Saddam didn't have a supreme hate toward the U.S.? -----------Answer each question then tell me the decision you would have made......ok, ok if you want to, you can twist whatever you want, but that doesn't make you right?

For what it's worth, I was the biggest cheerleader of the Iraq invasion in 2003 that you'd meet.

I was young, dumb, and full of cum then.

I don't agree with pre-emptive attacks against other countries anymore.

 

[DeadCanDance]

For what it's worth, I was the biggest cheerleader of the Iraq invasion in 2003 that you'd meet.

I was young, dumb, and full of cum then.

I don't agree with pre-emptive attacks against other countries anymore.

You are to be commended for having enough honesty and integrity to change your opinion, based on what has obviously been one of the most tragic disasters in american foreign policy history.

 

[Alpha1]

I was young, dumb, and full of cum then.
---------------

Well, MeLad....if you were young, dumb and full of cum in 2003, you're still young, dumb and full of cum in 2008...

If an enemy nation is known to possess CW, BW, and/or NW, and our President has good reason, trusted intell, to suspect that that nation might act, MIGHT use those weapons on the US....that President would be guilty of dereliction of his duty if he didn't pre-emptively remove that threat to the best of his ability by whatever means necessary........
because....
once the shit hits the fan just might prove to late to save the country and millions of our citizens....this loud mouth rhetoric from leaders of some nations that threaten to destroy others must realize that they are risking a catastrophe of their own making by their wild threats to others if they actually have the means to carry out those threats.........reaction is becoming unacceptable to the threats of WMD....the MAD policy of the cold war are no longer as sensible as once thought...


and this has nothing to do with present wars...

And with some luck....
Someday you'll be old, smart, full of wisdom and change your handle to DCD...

 

[jreeves]

think of Ronnie Reagan running away in frightened surrender from the slaughter of 241 marines in Beirut...

I dispute the assumption that Saddam was anywhere near as big a threat to us as islamic extremists were. For that matter, I dispute the assumption that Iraq was more dangerous to American interests than even Iran or North Korea.

I agree retreat from beirut was a mistake, that still doesn't change that Clinton was wrong for no response to terror attacks and retreating from Somali. Saddam was a threat, I seem to remember him invading his neighbors. Also, he killed his own people with WMD's for godsake. Iran and North Korea never used WMD's against their own people.

 

[Dr Grump]

I agree retreat from beirut was a mistake, that still doesn't change that Clinton was wrong for no response to terror attacks and retreating from Somali. Saddam was a threat, I seem to remember him invading his neighbors. Also, he killed his own people with WMD's for godsake. Iran and North Korea never used WMD's against their own people.

Clinton did respond to terrorist attacks. Somali had an aid focus, not a change of govt. Yeah, Iran is a lovely place - they just hang homos and shit. Great! And N Korea just starves people to death - but that's OK, Kim doesn't gas 'em!!

 

[Alucard]

Clinton did respond to terrorist attacks. Somali had an aid focus, not a change of govt. Yeah, Iran is a lovely place - they just hang homos and shit. Great! And N Korea just starves people to death - but that's OK, Kim doesn't gas 'em!!

Acording to your reasoning since Iran and N.Korea abuse their citizens we should of allowed Saddam to continue to murder innocent civilians...

I dont give a shit if Iraq had wmd's in the long run or not... I just picture that little kid running around smacking the shit out of the face of the Saddam statue the troops helped the people tear down the day we took Bagdad, and it was all worth it.... no one deserves to live under a tyrant like Saddam... I'm proud of what we have done.... I just want to finish the job ... we owe that to the Iraqi people...

 

[jillian]

Acording to your reasoning since Iran and N.Korea abuse their citizens we should of allowed Saddam to continue to murder innocent civilians...

I think his point is that Saddam's treatmen of his citizens had nothing to do with our going in.

I dont give a shit if Iraq had wmd's in the long run or not... I just picture that little kid running around smacking the shit out of the face of the Saddam statue the troops helped the people tear down the day we took Bagdad, and it was all worth it.... no one deserves to live under a tyrant like Saddam... I'm proud of what we have done.... I just want to finish the job ... we owe that to the Iraqi people...

Proud? That we occupied a foreign country for no reason? I'm not proud of that. I'm embarrassed for us.

That aside, when is the job done? I keep trying to get somone who wants to stay to explain it to me. Every answer I get basically... there's no difference if we leave now, in 10 years, or in 100 years.

Maybe you can do better.

 

[maineman]

I agree retreat from beirut was a mistake, that still doesn't change that Clinton was wrong for no response to terror attacks and retreating from Somali. Saddam was a threat, I seem to remember him invading his neighbors. Also, he killed his own people with WMD's for godsake. Iran and North Korea never used WMD's against their own people.

why then, six months BEFORE 9/11, did our secretary of state clearly and unambiguously state that Saddam was NOT a threat to either his neighbors or us? And your memory or Saddam's use of chemical weapons is a long one...it happened a decade before we invaded. In between that time, Islamic terrorists became a much greater and more important enemy for us than Saddam EVER was. WE had gotten attacked. WE should have been fighting a war against our attackers. Saddam had DIDDLY to do with 9/11. Saddam and Al Qaeda were natural enemies. Invading Iraq was an incredible waste of time, resources and focus.

These bad guys attacked us...so, in response...we go after some OTHER bad guy? That makes zero sense.

 

[Alpha1]

why then, six months BEFORE 9/11, did our secretary of state clearly and unambiguously state that Saddam was NOT a threat to either his neighbors or us? And your memory or Saddam's use of chemical weapons is a long one...it happened a decade before we invaded. In between that time, Islamic terrorists became a much greater and more important enemy for us than Saddam EVER was. WE had gotten attacked. WE should have been fighting a war against our attackers. Saddam had DIDDLY to do with 9/11. Saddam and Al Qaeda were natural enemies. Invading Iraq was an incredible waste of time, resources and focus.

These bad guys attacked us...so, in response...we go after some OTHER bad guy? That makes zero sense.

These bad guys attacked us...so, in response...we go after some OTHER bad guy? That makes zero sense.????????????????????????????????????
-----------------------------------------------------

You correctly state that "Saddam had DIDDLY to do with 9/11. "

Then,,,,you say," in response to being attacked, we go after some other bad guy........"
THATS JUST NOT A FACT (simply, its a lie)

In response to being attacked(that is 9/11) we attacked the AQ network in Afghan. and dismantled the Taliban....and are still fighting that enemy there.....WE DIDN'T GO AFTER SOME OTHER BAD GUY....in response to 9/11....

Try posting the truth, its not that difficult of you actually know what IS the truth....

 

[maineman]

These bad guys attacked us...so, in response...we go after some OTHER bad guy? That makes zero sense.????????????????????????????????????
-----------------------------------------------------

You correctly state that "Saddam had DIDDLY to do with 9/11. "

Then,,,,you say," in response to being attacked, we go after some other bad guy........"
THATS JUST NOT A FACT (simply, its a lie)

In response to being attacked(that is 9/11) we attacked the AQ network in Afghan. and dismantled the Taliban....and are still fighting that enemy there.....WE DIDN'T GO AFTER SOME OTHER BAD GUY....in response to 9/11....

Try posting the truth, its not that difficult of you actually know what IS the truth....

you are kidding yourself if you think that the vast majority of Americans did not see the invasion of Iraq as directly related to 9/11. And the bad guys who attacked us should ALWAYS be higher on our priority list than taking out unrelated bad guys. I was completely supportive of the invasion of Afghanistan in order to destroy and capture Al Qaeda. Team Bush misled us into a war in Iraq by co-joining Iraq and AQ and making it urgent because of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's and therefore the imminent transfer of those to the bad guys who attacked us...it was all bullshit and it moved our real enemy down our priority list. Unconscionable.

 

[mattskramer]

you are kidding yourself if you think that the vast majority of Americans did not see the invasion of Iraq as directly related to 9/11. And the bad guys who attacked us should ALWAYS be higher on our priority list than taking out unrelated bad guys. I was completely supportive of the invasion of Afghanistan in order to destroy and capture Al Qaeda. Team Bush misled us into a war in Iraq by co-joining Iraq and AQ and making it urgent because of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's and therefore the imminent transfer of those to the bad guys who attacked us...it was all bullshit and it moved our real enemy down our priority list. Unconscionable.

We are in complete agreement.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

 

[Alpha1]

you are kidding yourself if you think that the vast majority of Americans did not see the invasion of Iraq as directly related to 9/11.

What the majority of Americans THINK is not the point....what you said is ....and it was not true and you know that....

And the bad guys who attacked us should ALWAYS be higher on our priority list than taking out unrelated bad guys. I was completely supportive of the invasion of Afghanistan in order to destroy and capture Al Qaeda. Team Bush misled us into a war in Iraq by co-joining Iraq and AQ and making it urgent because of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's and therefore the imminent transfer of those to the bad guys who attacked us...it was all bullshit and it moved our real enemy down our priority list. Unconscionable.

You state something thats not true, then rant and rave like the injured party....we DIDN"T invade Iraq because of 9/11 and you know that...so why state otherwise, ....thats lying...
is being corrected that distasteful that you can't be a man about it...?

We did attack the AQ in Afghan. in response to 9/11...

You make an incorrect statement and your new pet, mattskramer swears to it....kinda weird...

 

[mattskramer]

You state something thats not true, then rant and rave like the injured party....we DIDN"T invade Iraq because of 9/11 and you know that...so why state otherwise, ....thats lying...
is being corrected that distasteful that you can't be a man about it...?

We did attack the AQ in Afghan. in response to 9/11...

You make an incorrect statement and your new pet, mattskramer swears to it....kinda weird...

I am nobody’s pet. I agree with MM on some things and disagree with him on others things. Along with other reasons that “Bush and company” suggested for our going to Iraq (which turned out to be false) was the notion that Saddam was partly responsible. If he did not say so, then Bush and his buddies certainly implied it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

“Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.” - President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2002. The speech was primarily concerned with how the US was coping in the aftermath of 11 September.

“We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On 11 September, 2001, America felt its vulnerability - even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.” - President Bush speaking in Cincinnati, Ohio, in October, 2002, in which he laid out the threat he believed Iraq posed.

“Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.” - President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00247.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/

 

[maineman]

You state something thats not true, then rant and rave like the injured party....we DIDN"T invade Iraq because of 9/11 and you know that...so why state otherwise, ....thats lying...
is being corrected that distasteful that you can't be a man about it...?

We did attack the AQ in Afghan. in response to 9/11...

You make an incorrect statement and your new pet, mattskramer swears to it....kinda weird...

no. my statement is not incorrect. We invaded Iraq for a variety of "reasons", none of which were all that urgent and none of which would have garnered the support of the American people had they not been misled to believe that our invasion of Iraq was a direct result of our being attacked. The American people were misled to believe that we had to invade Iraq because Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's, he was buddy buddy with AQ - and had been even before 9/11 - and if we didn't invade him right this very minute, he'd give those weapons to Osama who would use them against us.

And from the moment we DID invade Iraq, that front has consumed the VAST majority of our time, our energy, our treasure and our casualties while the real battle in Afghanistan is so minor in our priorities that the REAL bad guys are able to hold a TELEVISED outdoor graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers and not only are we incapable of responding, we didn't even KNOW about it until well after it was over. pathetic.

 

[Alpha1]

no. my statement is not incorrect.

Busllshit...
Saddam had DIDDLY to do with 9/11. Saddam and Al Qaeda were natural enemies. Invading Iraq was an incredible waste of time, resources and focus.

"These bad guys attacked us...so, in response...we go after some OTHER bad guy? That makes zero sense."

THIS IS your statement and it is a lie.....
We did not go after Iraq for 9/11 and YOU FUCKIN' KNOW IT....

The above unlined plainly shows you know the truth...and in the next sentence you plainly lie....if thats not obvious to you, your command of English is worse than I thought...

This has nothing to do with what anyone else believed....YOU OWN THIS STATEMENT, only you...and you're lying....





We invaded Iraq for a variety of "reasons", none of which were all that urgent and none of which would have garnered the support of the American people had they not been misled to believe that our invasion of Iraq was a direct result of our being attacked. The American people were misled to believe that we had to invade Iraq because Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's, he was buddy buddy with AQ - and had been even before 9/11 - and if we didn't invade him right this very minute, he'd give those weapons to Osama who would use them against us.

And from the moment we DID invade Iraq, that front has consumed the VAST majority of our time, our energy, our treasure and our casualties while the real battle in Afghanistan is so minor in our priorities that the REAL bad guys are able to hold a TELEVISED outdoor graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers and not only are we incapable of responding, we didn't even KNOW about it until well after it was over. pathetic.

Take it like a man for once in your life....

 

[Dr Grump]

Take it like a man for once in your life....

How about admitting you're wrong for once in your life...

 

[maineman]

Take it like a man for once in your life....

what????

I know that Saddam did not have diddly to do with 9/11. That is stated.

I KNOW that a majority of Americans were led to believe that Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11. That is documented.

I know that Bush misled Americans into thinking that Saddam and AQ were in cahoots. That is also demonstrated by numerous quotes from Team Bush...the Dark Lord Cheney in particular.

I know that the Bush administration convinced America that there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and the implication was not at all subtle that they would end up in the hands of AQ. That is also demonstrated by numerous quotes.

A vast majority of Americans believed that the invasion of Iraq was a direct response to 9/11 in that we were going to get the guy who had planned it, and the guy who would be the arms supplier for the guys who DID it.

Can you understand the argument?

I have told no lie.

And I would not continue to question my manhood, if I were you, grampa.