Bush's Lies Caused The Iraq War

[KNB]

The Saddam Hussein Sourcebook
Saddam Hussein: More Secret History
Saddam Hussein Talks to the FBI

 

[U2Edge]

I will defend Bush's decision to invade Iraq, since he got the votes in Congress and UN Resolution 1441 to back him up.

Your claim that 1441 backs Bush's decision to force "1441" inspectors out of Iraq while inspection teams were in fact engaged in proactive cooperation from Saddam Hussein's government, holds absolutely no merit. That is a weak and implausible defense of Bush's decision to start a war.

Resolution 678 was still apart of resolution 1441 and authorized the use of military force in dealing with Iraqi non-compliance. Bill Clinton used resolution 678 as justification for all the military action that took place while Bill Clinton was in office against Iraq. Al Gore even stated in 2002 that Bush did not need another UN resolution and already had the legal right to begin military action against Iraq from an international stand point.

So resolution 1441 indeed authorized the us of military force. In fact it was an additional resolution authorizing force.


Equally important, when the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003, other member states could have asked for a resolution condemning the US action and calling for the US to withdraw immediately. There was NEVER any attempt at such resolution by anyone in the Security Council or in the General Assembly.

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1980, there was a resolution in the Security Council to condemn the invasion and call for a Soviet withdrawal, but the Soviets used their veto power and vetoed.

Despite that, the General Assembly was able to pass a resolution condemning the Soviet invasion and calling for a withdrawal. Unfortunately, resolutions that are only passed by the General Assembly are not enforceable and are generally symbolic in nature..

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the UN Security Council passed a resolution condemning the invasion and calling for Iraq to withdraw.

But in 2003 when the United States and other nations invaded, there were no attempts either in the security council or the general assembly to pass a resolution condemning the invasion and calling for a US withdrawal. Why? Because it was rather obvious that the United States and other nations already had the legal right to use military force in this case.

 

[U2Edge]

Let me guess. Wikipedia?

I gave you a link to George Washington University's National Security Archives with declassified US government documents and you come back with a wikipedia list?

The International Institute for Strategic Studies is a London Based Think Tank. I used the 1989-1990 issue of the Military Balance for my numbers. ITS A BOOK, not something from Wikipedia which is not a source!

Your link had lots of stuff about torture, nothing about tanks or combat aircraft used by Saddam's military in the 1980s.

 

[U2Edge]

The Saddam Hussein Sourcebook
Saddam Hussein: More Secret History
Saddam Hussein Talks to the FBI

There is nothing in these links that discuss the manufacture of any weapon system in the United States for Saddam's military for use on the battlefield. NOTHING. If there is, name the weapon system.

 

[U2Edge]

Removing Saddam was a necessity and the fact that US troops did not have to face the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction in their invasion to remove Saddam from power is something that should be celebrated!

If removing Saddam was a necessity regardless after the unanimous passage of UNSC Resolution 1441 and the subsequent UN inspections that transpired as a result of that Resolution, then you are supporting the argument that Bush lied in October 2002 when he asked Congress to authorize the use of force in order to compel Saddam Hussein to allow UN inspectors back in.

You can't have it both ways. Bush did not seek regime change for regime change's sake in October 2002. The intent of the authorization by Congress for war according to the language in the AUMF was only if necessary had Saddam Hussein not allowed a resumption of UN inspections as he did.

In fact Saddam Hussein offered Bush in December 2002 to let the CIA come into Iraq to search for WMD alongside UN inspectors. Bush rejected that offer.

The decision to go back to the UN for another resolution and get UN inspectors back in was an attempt to go the extra mile before the start of war. Dick Cheney, Al Gore and others did not thing Bush needed another UN resolution to begin military action, and inspections are useless unless the country being inspected is honest and compliant. Saddam was in the early 1990s, but by 1995, was seriously beginning to obstruct their work and hide what his military and personal were doing. Saddam would not allow inspectors back in the country after 1998.

UN inspectors in Iraq during their time from late 2002 to early 2003 were unable to resolve any of the issues regard SADDAM's WMD that were left over from late 1998, the last time they were on the ground.

COMPLIANCE IS SADDAM's responsibility, not the UN's!

 

[Camp]

US-Iraq 1980s

US weapons transfers to Iraq, see 1983 Helicopter sales.
Jan '84 Murphy Memo


http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

 

[BlindBoo]

Inaccurate intelligence is not an example of lying. There is no proof that Bush ever lied about anything. Bush was re-elected by the American people in November 2004 with the first majority win in the popular vote since 1988.

Would claiming to have intelligence on March 17, 2003 in an address to the nation announcing that Bush had decided to start a war during ongoing peaceful UN inspections be a lie in your view if no such intelligence was actually presented to Bush at that time?

The straight dope on Bush's record of lies on Iraq has little to do with inaccurate intelligence from the intelligence agencies of the world because the most accurate intelligence available to Bush at that time came from the UN inspection teams on the ground in Iraq for four months prior to the Bush decision to start a war.

No, the most accurate intelligence on Iraq's capabilities came from the United States military and other investigators that were ALLOWED TO GO ANYWHERE THEY NEEDED TO IN IRAQ AFTER SADDAM HAD BEEN REMOVED AND COULD NO LONGER HAMPER, HIDE OR RESTRICT ACCESS TO ANYTHING!

In any event, there was a mountain of other reasons to invade and remove Saddam in 2003 besides any intelligence suggesting that he did now have WMD weapons ready for use on the battlefield. The goal since 1991 Gulf War was PREVENTING SADDAM from ever obtaining the capabilities again, not to wait until he had these capabilities to use against US troops or civilians in the region before acting. So the fact that US troops did not face any WMD on the battlefield is something that should be celebrated! It means the United States invaded at the right time, reducing the cost in blood and treasure which would be far greater if the United States had invaded Saddam's Iraq that was equipped and ready to use such weapons!

As for intelligence, the Iraq invasion of 2003 is not the first time that intelligence was shown to be inaccurate. The President did not lie. There was intelligence prior to the conflict which showed that SADDAM had WMD. After the invasion, it was shown to be inaccurate. BUT NO ONE LIED!

Actually there were two reasons President Bush was authorized to decide on. One, that Iraq was somehow a threat to the worlds remaining superpower, that diplomatic means could not solve. Second if Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks.

 

[U2Edge]

US-Iraq 1980s

US weapons transfers to Iraq, see 1983 Helicopter sales.
Jan '84 Murphy Memo


Iran Chamber Society: History of Iran: Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement

I've already said transport Helicopters, trucks and economic aid was sent. But not weapon systems. The above were not weapon systems. They were the following: 60 civilian Hughes helicopters.

At this time the Soviet Union was equipping Iraq with hundreds of Mi-24 HIND attack Helicopter Gunships.

Here is a demonstration of what the Mi-24 Hind can do:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fX3t5bg7N4]Mi-24 - YouTube[/ame]

C

 

[U2Edge]

Would claiming to have intelligence on March 17, 2003 in an address to the nation announcing that Bush had decided to start a war during ongoing peaceful UN inspections be a lie in your view if no such intelligence was actually presented to Bush at that time?

The straight dope on Bush's record of lies on Iraq has little to do with inaccurate intelligence from the intelligence agencies of the world because the most accurate intelligence available to Bush at that time came from the UN inspection teams on the ground in Iraq for four months prior to the Bush decision to start a war.

No, the most accurate intelligence on Iraq's capabilities came from the United States military and other investigators that were ALLOWED TO GO ANYWHERE THEY NEEDED TO IN IRAQ AFTER SADDAM HAD BEEN REMOVED AND COULD NO LONGER HAMPER, HIDE OR RESTRICT ACCESS TO ANYTHING!

In any event, there was a mountain of other reasons to invade and remove Saddam in 2003 besides any intelligence suggesting that he did now have WMD weapons ready for use on the battlefield. The goal since 1991 Gulf War was PREVENTING SADDAM from ever obtaining the capabilities again, not to wait until he had these capabilities to use against US troops or civilians in the region before acting. So the fact that US troops did not face any WMD on the battlefield is something that should be celebrated! It means the United States invaded at the right time, reducing the cost in blood and treasure which would be far greater if the United States had invaded Saddam's Iraq that was equipped and ready to use such weapons!

As for intelligence, the Iraq invasion of 2003 is not the first time that intelligence was shown to be inaccurate. The President did not lie. There was intelligence prior to the conflict which showed that SADDAM had WMD. After the invasion, it was shown to be inaccurate. BUT NO ONE LIED!

Actually there were two reasons President Bush was authorized to decide on. One, that Iraq was somehow a threat to the worlds remaining superpower, that diplomatic means could not solve. Second if Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks.

The United States was already bombing Iraq on an annual basis before operation Iraq Freedom was launched and had been for 12 years. Why? Because Iraq threatened the region which is vital to the global economy. Saddam's Iraq had already invaded and attacked four different countries in the region. Saddam's Iraq annexed Kuwait, the first leader of a country to annex another since Adolf Hitler did in the 1940s. Iraq had used WMD more times than any other nation on the battlefield and had killed thousands of soldiers and civilians with the weapons. Iraq had caused massive environmental damage on purpose when they set fire to all of Kuwait's oil wells and dumped Kuwaiti oil into the Persian Gulf. Saddam's Iraq launched repeated Ballistic missile attacks on Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Saddam's actions led to the deaths of 1.7 million people. Saddam refused to comply with any of the 18 UN Security Council resolutions passed against him. He continued to remain in violation of all of them right up to the ground invasion in March 2003. The sanctions and weapons embargo that had been placed on Saddam's Iraq in 1991 was falling apart by the year 2000 with neighboring countries violating it and even permanent members of the UN Security Council like Russia, China and France violating it. With the means of containment in shambles, it was only prudent that Bush take decisive military action to finally remove Saddam from power before he could significantly rearm and cause further damage in addition to the fact that attacking Saddam later on would be far more costly for coalition troops and civilians in Iraq and the region as more time would allow Saddam time to prepare and take advantage of lax or non-existent sanctions to help rebuild his military. Turns out Bush took out Saddam at the best possible time and the region and world are much safer today because of the removal of Saddam!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Actually there were two reasons President Bush was authorized to decide on. One, that Iraq was somehow a threat to the worlds remaining superpower, that diplomatic means could not solve.

The AUMF was not so casually worded. But more on that later. On a Saddam-ruled Iraq being a threat to the world's remaining superpower, could you tell me how Bush could have viewed Iraq as not a threat with Saddam in power on March 7 through 10 of 2003, and then one week later Bush decides that UN inspectors would need to leave Iraq so Bush could bomb it and invade it with ground troops in order to occupy it.

What happened during that week after Bush and Blair sent a draft resolution to the UNSC which was in essence a deal to leave Saddam Hussein in power and not invade Iraq?

What threat did Bush miraculously find during the week leading up to Shock n Awe?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The United States was already bombing Iraq on an annual basis before operation Iraq Freedom was launched and had been for 12 years. Why? Because Iraq threatened the region which is vital to the global economy.

Would you agree then that the US and UK were already 'at war' with Iraq when Bush asked Congress to pass an AUMF in October 2002 to pressure Saddam Hussein to be disarmed peacefully once and for all?

Tony and George were bombing Iraq pretty hard during the summer of 2002 were they not?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No, the most accurate intelligence on Iraq's capabilities came from the United States military and other investigators that were ALLOWED TO GO ANYWHERE THEY NEEDED TO IN IRAQ AFTER SADDAM HAD BEEN REMOVED AND COULD NO LONGER HAMPER, HIDE OR RESTRICT ACCESS TO ANYTHING!.

But Bush said on March 17, 2003 that he already had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was at that very point in time concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN 1441 inspectors.

That means Bush's supposedly undoubtable reliable intelligence agents had overcome any alleged 'hampering' by the Baathist regime prior to invading as you are suggesting was not possible.

You also appear to be suggesting that regime change is acceptable if the pretext is to gain better intelligence of what is going.

I'm old school. Its best to demand the most exact and well substantiated intelligence if its to be used to justify the bombing and invading of a sovereign nation to topple its government and occupy it, prior to starting such a war.

I would hope you agree with that, but who knows?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Saddam refused to comply with any of the 18 UN Security Council resolutions passed against him. He continued to remain in violation of all of them right up to the ground invasion in March 2003.

Who declared Saddam Hussein to be in violation of UNSC Resolution 1441 which granted Iraq a final opportunity to comply? Iraq did not force the inspections out and to end. Bush did that with his decision to invade on March 17 2003.

 

[deltex1]

Goddam, Foo...I would have guessed you would be dead by now...for sure your horse is.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If Bush lied then so did the Clintons, John Kerry, Al Gore, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, Joe Lieberman, Nancy Pelosi, Bob Graham and many other prominent Democrats as far back as the late nineties....

Bush lied on March 17, 2003 when he addressed the nation saying that he had intelligence that left no doubt that Saddam's regime was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from the UN Resolution 1441 inspectors at that time. None of those you mentioned above told that lie. It is solely Bush's lie at that pivotal moment in time.

Senator Hillary Clinton had access to the latest classified intelligence on Iraq on March 17, 2003. She along with the rest of Congress had access to this intelligence, and supported the use of military force at that time.

If Bush had lied about anything, everyone would know. No one walked away from their views that they had made in the previous months. They all had the opportunity to speak up if they thought or new Bush was lying about intelligence. Not a single one did.

I said, HRC did not tell that lie. Bush told that lie. And I have explained to you why it was a lie. The evidence is the Draft Resolution sent by Bush and Blair to the UNSC on March 7, 2003. Is there a reason you are not addressing that?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Goddam, Foo...

Glad you showed up for the Bush lied side.

Hoo: Bush is a politician. That he was sure Saddam had WMD is doubtful. That he was sure it was the right next step in the WOT to remove Saddam is not doubtful. As a politician he used the WMD issue to bolster and sell his argument that the removal of Saddam was necessary.

That is lying isn't it?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Did President Clinton know precisely where Saddam had WMD when he launched several days of heavy bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox in December 1998? The United States was already at war with Iraq before the Iraqi freedom ground invasion as the United States had been bombing Iraq every year since 1991 for all kinds of different violations.

Clinton bombed Iraq because Saddam was obstructing inspections and the inspectors left because they could not do their work. Clinton did not lie and told us precisely why Iraq was being bombed.

I can present the facts:

'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.

The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.

CNN - Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance - December 16, 1998

That was a bad argument to make for your cause because the inspectors were reporting much successes in March 2003 until Bush not Saddam forced an end to the 1441 inspections.

 

[mudwhistle]

Did President Clinton know precisely where Saddam had WMD when he launched several days of heavy bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox in December 1998? The United States was already at war with Iraq before the Iraqi freedom ground invasion as the United States had been bombing Iraq every year since 1991 for all kinds of different violations.

Clinton bombed Iraq because Saddam was obstructing inspections and the inspectors left because they could not do their work. Clinton did not lie and told us precisely why Iraq was being bombed.

I can present the facts:

'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.

The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.

CNN - Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance - December 16, 1998

That was a bad argument to make for your cause because the inspectors were reporting much successes in March 2003 until Bush not Saddam forced an end to the 1441 inspections.

Bush lost patience with Saddam. He was acting like the Whitehouse and the IRS. Hiding evidence from inspectors.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

COMPLIANCE IS SADDAM's responsibility, not the UN's!

Cooperating by Iraq in March 2003 was unprecedented and at a level that compliance was anticipated to be achieved within a few months according to inspectors and UNSC members. The inspectors had begun setting up long term monitoring which would be the next phase of compliance after compliance was achieved and verification that Iraq was disarmed was deteimef.

Blix and elbaradai could recommend the lifting of sanctions and Bush and Blair could not veto that.

Bush would certainly stop at nothing to prevent the lifting of sanctions verified by long term monitoring would he not. Even lie wouldn't he? And he did.

He showed his hand to the public and UNSC on March 7 that he had nothing to dispute the findings and verification of the inspectors so ten days later he had to lie and blur that lie with references to other countries intelligence services to spread the blame.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Bush lost patience with Saddam. He was acting like the Whitehouse and the IRS. Hiding evidence from inspectors.

But Iraq was not hiding evidence from inspectors. Saddam cooperating according to inspectors prior to the invasion. If Bush had intelligence that proved without doubt that Iraq was hiding evidence from inspectors that evidence should have been shared with inspectors. And Bush had no justification for being impatient because as early as December 2002 Saddam
Hussein personally told Bush he could bring the CIA and US military WMD experts peacefully into Iraq to investigate first hand where and what the CIA thought was being hidden.

Impatience is a horrible reason to start bombing and invading a country that was no threat at the time of invasion with UN inspectors on the ground doing important but peaceful disarmament work.