Bush's Lies Caused The Iraq War

[whutTHEYsay]

The fact of the matter is that democrats decided to undermine the mission and play a little game of treason. Harry Reid should have been indicted for treason when he tried to impact the morale of the Troops when he told them "the war is lost" just before the Troop Surge.

So do you believe 61% of the American people including many who actually fought in Iraq are traitors? The morale of the troops was impacted when the reason they were sent there turned out to be not true. Iraq was not concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors in the middle of March 2003. That is a fact. That is reality. That is the truth. So there was nothing to 'win' because the reason for the war being started in the first place was false. The only "WIN" in Iraq would have been to remove actual stockpiles of WMD from the dictator thus preventing them from falling into the hands of terrorists. There was no other reason to bomb, and kill people in Iraq but for that one.
The Iraq invasion was lost the second Bush decided to do it. There is your 'treason'.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Bush had intelligence that showed Saddam was hiding a stash of chemical weapons and some nuke material. It proved to be true. But of course nothing that was found was enough for the media. Even though they found hundreds of tons of uranium the media simply dismissed it. The last of Saddam's chemical program ended up in Syria, and we're currently destroying it at sea under Russian supervision. Document evidence on the ground was found that showed that Saddam was worse than we thought. All of the mass graves that were found showed his sadistic acts. Torture rooms, genocide of the Kurds and Shiites.

Seems to me, if it's not broadcasted on CNN you think it never existed.

Obama is doing the same thing Saddam was doing. It's like trying to nail down jello. I can see why Bush was a bit frustrated.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

Saddam refused to give the inspectors full access to the sites where WMD was suspected of being. And at night we could see a line of trucks leading from those sites to the Syrian border.

 

[U2Edge]

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?

1. It was United States policy starting during the last years of the Clinton administration to find a way to remove Saddam from power. It was official US policy to do that. That did not change when Bush came into office in 2001.

2. The United States was already bombing Iraq prior to the ground invasion by US troops. The United States bombed Iraq throughout 2002 as well as in all the years prior to that going back to 1991.

So your semantic game play on a how a particular document was worded and what it meant, is essentially irrelevant.

 

[U2Edge]

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?

1. The United States had been bombing Iraq every year since 1991. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq every year that he was in office. There were many airstrikes on various Iraqi military instillations in the summer of 2002. Nothing nearly as large as Bill Clinton's Desert Fox operation in December of 1998, but still military action none the less.

2. Remember that it was already official United States policy starting in the last years of the Clinton Administration to remove Saddam from power.

3. From a legal standpoint, because of Iraq's violations of the 1991 Gulf War Ceasefire, Iraq had been at war with the United States and the international community ever since Saddam's first violations of the ceasefire back in 1991. Essentially, the 1991 Gulf War never ended, until Saddam was removed from power in 2003.

 

[U2Edge]

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?

The United States and the international community were already justified in removing Saddam from power because of his continuing violations of 17 UN Security Council resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations. Compliance with the resolutions stemming from Iraq's illegal invasion, occupation and annexation of Kuwait in 1990 are all that is needed to justify the use of military force against Iraq. Intelligence showing or suggesting that Saddam's Iraq had built new WMD would be an additional reason for taking military action, but not a prerequisite. [/B]

Remember two things:

1. The United States was already taking military action against Saddam's Iraq, and had been in every year from 1991 through 2003.

2. It became the official policy of the United States in 1999 to find a way to remove Saddam from power.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

1441 stated that Saddam was already in violation of multiple UN security council resolutions as well as the Gulf War Ceacefire. It also reaffirmed resolution 678 which authorized the United States and other member states of the UN to use military force to bring Iraq into compliance.

Again, 1441 noted that Saddam was in violation of multiple UN security Council resolutions and Saddam did nothing to comply with any of the resolutions in between the passage of 1441 and the start of the ground invasion in March 2003. The United States and other member states already had the legal right to invade Iraq back in November of 2002 as well as in every year before that going back to 1991 given Saddam's continued violations of the UN Security Council resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire. Military action was actually taken in all these years as part of a package to attempt to contain Saddam as well as force him into compliance with the UN Security Council Resolutions. The ground invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was once again the use of military force, but simply a tactic that up until that time had not been used.

 

[U2Edge]

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?

1. The United States was already at war with Iraq and had been since 1991 because of Saddam's continued violations of the 1991 Ceasefire agreement

2. It became the policy of the United States to find a way to remove Saddam from power in 1999 when Bill Clinton was President.

3. The ground invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was simply the use of military force against Iraq which had been going on since 1991, but was a different tactic that had yet to be tried to bring about compliance with the UN Security Council Resolutions.

4. Given that, your opinion about the wording of particular documents in March is irrelevant.

 

[Camp]

So here we are again. After posters provide endless and overwhelming evidence that Bush and his administration lied repeatedly about the reasons it was necessary to go to war, and to gain support for the war of invasion and occupation of Iraq, the discussion becomes, well, we had other reasons and so the lies are irrelevant. This is where it always goes. Did Bush lie, yes he did. He told great fabrications and made huge fraudulent statements. He lied to the public and to elected officials and to foreign governments and the leaders of those governments. He and his administration told us about secret intelligence that had to be kept from us for security reasons. They told us to trust them. In the end we found out they were liars, had no secret intelligence about al Qaeda connections and WMD's. And it gets worse, they not only made stuff up, they omitted good reliable intelligence data that would have forced them to hold back.
So we have all this evidence and proof and the defenders of Bush and his crew have to resort to whining about all the other reasons for going after Saddam. They do so with the hope that folks will disregard the fact that those "other" reasons did not, would not and would never convince the congress or the American people to throw away it's blood and treasure. Bush and his administration was given the OK to wage war because Bush and his administration claimed to have certain and sure proof that Saddam was connected to al Qaeda and possessed WMD's, not because he had crazy sons and was a mean dictator or because he was a pain in the a55.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

1. Regime Change became the police of the United States in regards to Saddam's Iraq in 1999.

2. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq every single year he was in office. Operation Desert Fox was just one of those bombing strikes.

3. The United States and other member states were already authorized under resolution 678 from 1990 to use military force to bring Iraq into compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions.

4. The UN inspectors were not successful in resolving ANY of the outstanding issues with regards to Iraq's WMD from November 2002 through March 2003. SADDAM was still in violation of every single UN Security Council Resolution that had been passed against him since 1990 and was still in violation of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement at the time the ground invasion was launched in 2003.

5. The United States was already bombing Iraq prior to the ground invasion of March 2003, prior to the passage of resolution 1441 in November 2002, as well as every year prior to 2002 starting in 1991. The ground invasion in March 2003 was simply the use of new military tactics to bring about compliance which in this case was only able to occur with the removal of Saddam's regime from power which the ground invasion succeeded in doing.

 

[BlindBoo]

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!

After the UN backed military effort to expel Iraq from Kuwait and the UN Sanctions, by 2001 Iraq was no threat.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

After 9-11 the worst possible action we could take was an invasion and occupation of an oil rich Arab Nation that was not involved in the attacks that day. Not only did President Bush do that, but the policies carried out during the occupation of Iraq sparked the three way sectarian civil war that continues to this day. Islamic Radicals are using our actions after 9-11 as a recruiting tool. It was a monumental strategic blunder.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Sanctions against Iraq were already essentially non-existent. Saddam was selling Billions of dollars of oil on the Black Market each year by 2003. China was setting Iraq's new air defense network in violation of sanctions. France and Russia were allowing commercial air travel into Iraq. Syria was no longer enforcing the sanctions along is long border with Iraq. Neither was Iran, and there were heavy violations even along the Turkish border.

Saddam was in violation of all 18 UN Security Council Resolutions as well as the 1991 Gulf War Ceasefire. The United States and the international community were already at war with Iraq prior to March 2003. The United States and the international community had already been down the road of Iraq's cheat and retreat strategy. There was absolutely no reason to delay the ground invasion of March 2003. Sanctions and the weapons embargo were no longer working against Saddam all they were still there on paper. Delaying the ground invasion would have given Saddam more time to prepare for it and cause greater casualties among coalition troops and civilians once the invasion was finally launched.

The ground invasion was launched at the right time and succeeded in bringing Iraq into compliance with the UN resolutions as well as succeeding a US policy objective stated in 1999 which was the removal of Saddam's regime from power.

Remember, that Saddam's violations of UN Security Council resolutions were not just about WMD, but involved many other issues as well, including tens of thousands of Kuwaiti citizens still missing from Saddam's brutal invasion, occupation and annexation of Kuwait in 1990!

 

[U2Edge]

The fact of the matter is that democrats decided to undermine the mission and play a little game of treason. Harry Reid should have been indicted for treason when he tried to impact the morale of the Troops when he told them "the war is lost" just before the Troop Surge.

So do you believe 61% of the American people including many who actually fought in Iraq are traitors? The morale of the troops was impacted when the reason they were sent there turned out to be not true. Iraq was not concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors in the middle of March 2003. That is a fact. That is reality. That is the truth. So there was nothing to 'win' because the reason for the war being started in the first place was false. The only "WIN" in Iraq would have been to remove actual stockpiles of WMD from the dictator thus preventing them from falling into the hands of terrorists. There was no other reason to bomb, and kill people in Iraq but for that one.
The Iraq invasion was lost the second Bush decided to do it. There is your 'treason'.

1. It was already the police of the United States starting in 1999 to find a way to remove Saddam from power.

2. The United States had been bombing Iraq every year since 1991.

3. Saddam's violations of the 1991 Gulf War Ceasefire meant that Saddam was already at war again with the United States and the international community.

4. The collapse of sanctions and the weapons embargo against Saddam in the early 2000s meant that the most important means of containing Saddam were gone. If Saddam remained in power, he would be able to rebuild his military forces as well as WMD capabilities which would make any invasion in the future to remove him much more costly.

5. By launching the ground invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Bush saved the lives of soldiers and civilians that would die in a much more costly operation at a point in time in the future when Saddam would have better means to inflict casualties on coalition forces and civilians.

6. Every year in the Military Times Poll since 2003, the Majority of US military personal have agreed that removing Saddam from power was the right course of action. The majority gets higher when you only look at active duty troops with multiple combat tours in Iraq.

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

Of course not but that's what it meant.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

 

[U2Edge]

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!

After the UN backed military effort to expel Iraq from Kuwait and the UN Sanctions, by 2001 Iraq was no threat.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

After 9-11 the worst possible action we could take was an invasion and occupation of an oil rich Arab Nation that was not involved in the attacks that day. Not only did President Bush do that, but the policies carried out during the occupation of Iraq sparked the three way sectarian civil war that continues to this day. Islamic Radicals are using our actions after 9-11 as a recruiting tool. It was a monumental strategic blunder.

Much of what they said was true, but they also NEVER said that SADDAM was no longer a threat and they never said the United States go withdraw its forces in the region or stop bombing Iraq.

In the early 2000s, at the same time that Powell came into office, Iraq was getting out from under the sanctions and the weapons embargo. Saddam by 2002 was able to sell Billions of dollars of oil on the black market. China in 2002 was setting up a new air defense network for Saddam's Iraq. The French and Russians were allowing commercial air traffic into Iraq by 2002. These were all violations of the sanctions. Syria was no longer enforcing sanctions along its border with Iraq by 2002.

The goal since 1991 had been to PREVENT Saddam from ever rebuilding his prior military or WMD capacities. That means that military action would SHOULD TAKE place prior to SADDAM obtaining old or new WMD capabilities. Waiting beyond that point to when such capabilities were already built would essentially be acting to late, in terms of PREVENTION which was the purpose of sanctions, the weapons embargo, and the annual military action be conducted against Iraq ever year already. That containment regime was already starting to erode when Powell and Rice came into office, and the rate greatly increased in the 2 years from early 2001 to early 2003.

Today, Colin Powell still supports the removal of Saddam despite the fact that intelligence on the state of Iraq's WMD in March 2003 turned out to be inaccurate. Saddam was a threat to the region and the world, regardless of his specific military capabilities in March 2003. The objective of US policy was to prevent Saddam from ever getting such capabilities again and to use all means necessary including the us of military force to achieve that. The United States used a ground invasion of Iraq in March 2003 to remove the regime after intelligence showed he had rebuilt some of his WMD. As it turned out, that was inaccurate, and the United States succeeded in removing Saddam before he could rebuild such capacities, which is something that should be celebrated. Removing Saddam once he had WMD would have been far more costly for the military and civilians in the region.

The Sanctions and weapons embargo were being heavily violated by March 2003 and without those two things, containment of Saddam was impossible, even if you think that containment was a viable strategy against Saddam. Other tactics to bring about regime change in Iraq had failed. Regime change through a military invasion was the only option left.

 

[U2Edge]

So here we are again. After posters provide endless and overwhelming evidence that Bush and his administration lied repeatedly about the reasons it was necessary to go to war, and to gain support for the war of invasion and occupation of Iraq, the discussion becomes, well, we had other reasons and so the lies are irrelevant. This is where it always goes. Did Bush lie, yes he did. He told great fabrications and made huge fraudulent statements. He lied to the public and to elected officials and to foreign governments and the leaders of those governments. He and his administration told us about secret intelligence that had to be kept from us for security reasons. They told us to trust them. In the end we found out they were liars, had no secret intelligence about al Qaeda connections and WMD's. And it gets worse, they not only made stuff up, they omitted good reliable intelligence data that would have forced them to hold back.
So we have all this evidence and proof and the defenders of Bush and his crew have to resort to whining about all the other reasons for going after Saddam. They do so with the hope that folks will disregard the fact that those "other" reasons did not, would not and would never convince the congress or the American people to throw away it's blood and treasure. Bush and his administration was given the OK to wage war because Bush and his administration claimed to have certain and sure proof that Saddam was connected to al Qaeda and possessed WMD's, not because he had crazy sons and was a mean dictator or because he was a pain in the a55.

The fact that intelligence on Iraq's WMD capacity in 2003, for that specific point in time, proved to be inaccurate, is NOT evidence that anyone in the Bush administration or the administrations of other countries lied about anything. It is what it is, inaccurate intelligence. No one lied, and it was a necessity to remove Saddam because of the collapse of the sanctions and weapons embargo which were the only possible means of containing him.

In February 2001, 7 months before the 9/11 attacks. Gallup polling company had a poll where it asked Americans if they supported using US military force to remove Saddam from power. 52% in the poll, a clear majority said YES!

1. The United States was already bombing Iraq prior to the ground invasion of Iraq in March 2003. It had been bombing Iraq every year since 1991.

2. It became official US policy in 1999 under Bill Clinton to find a way remove Saddam from power.

3. By removing Saddam in March 2003, the United States actually saved blood and treasure because an invasion years later when Saddam was rearmed and had deployable WMD would have been vastly more costly for the military and civilians in the region.


It is your blind obsession with the fact that intelligence on WMD in 2003 proved to be inaccurate and that that automatically some how means Bush was lying that is preventing you to see the much larger picture of what was going on. If you continue to narrowly define everything on that one particular issue, you will never really understand what happened and why.

 

[deltex1]

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?

As I have said to you for ten years...when leaders decide it is their countries best interest to make war on another nation, the first step is to demonize that country's leader. There was much to demonize in Saddam. Was it all true...was it all necessary...probably not. Did it result in congressional approval of the plan? Yes. Was anyone fooled by it? No. Only after when the plan proved imperfect did the libs start whining about being "lied" too. Too late.

 

[Contumacious]

The fact that intelligence on Iraq's WMD capacity in 2003, for that specific point in time, proved to be inaccurate, is NOT evidence that anyone in the Bush administration or the administrations of other countries lied about anything. .

BULLSHIT

The new Pentagon papers

A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.

Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, USAF, Ret

.

 

[BlindBoo]

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!

After the UN backed military effort to expel Iraq from Kuwait and the UN Sanctions, by 2001 Iraq was no threat.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

After 9-11 the worst possible action we could take was an invasion and occupation of an oil rich Arab Nation that was not involved in the attacks that day. Not only did President Bush do that, but the policies carried out during the occupation of Iraq sparked the three way sectarian civil war that continues to this day. Islamic Radicals are using our actions after 9-11 as a recruiting tool. It was a monumental strategic blunder.

Much of what they said was true, but they also NEVER said that SADDAM was no longer a threat and they never said the United States go withdraw its forces in the region or stop bombing Iraq.

In the early 2000s, at the same time that Powell came into office, Iraq was getting out from under the sanctions and the weapons embargo. Saddam by 2002 was able to sell Billions of dollars of oil on the black market. China in 2002 was setting up a new air defense network for Saddam's Iraq. The French and Russians were allowing commercial air traffic into Iraq by 2002. These were all violations of the sanctions. Syria was no longer enforcing sanctions along its border with Iraq by 2002.

The goal since 1991 had been to PREVENT Saddam from ever rebuilding his prior military or WMD capacities. That means that military action would SHOULD TAKE place prior to SADDAM obtaining old or new WMD capabilities. Waiting beyond that point to when such capabilities were already built would essentially be acting to late, in terms of PREVENTION which was the purpose of sanctions, the weapons embargo, and the annual military action be conducted against Iraq ever year already. That containment regime was already starting to erode when Powell and Rice came into office, and the rate greatly increased in the 2 years from early 2001 to early 2003.

Today, Colin Powell still supports the removal of Saddam despite the fact that intelligence on the state of Iraq's WMD in March 2003 turned out to be inaccurate. Saddam was a threat to the region and the world, regardless of his specific military capabilities in March 2003. The objective of US policy was to prevent Saddam from ever getting such capabilities again and to use all means necessary including the us of military force to achieve that. The United States used a ground invasion of Iraq in March 2003 to remove the regime after intelligence showed he had rebuilt some of his WMD. As it turned out, that was inaccurate, and the United States succeeded in removing Saddam before he could rebuild such capacities, which is something that should be celebrated. Removing Saddam once he had WMD would have been far more costly for the military and civilians in the region.

The Sanctions and weapons embargo were being heavily violated by March 2003 and without those two things, containment of Saddam was impossible, even if you think that containment was a viable strategy against Saddam. Other tactics to bring about regime change in Iraq had failed. Regime change through a military invasion was the only option left.

The UN had achieved it goal of removing Iraq from Kuwait and had eliminated his stockpiles of Chemical and Biological weapons. Without the capacity to attack us with a WMD his conventional army posed no significant threat to us or our allies in the region. Iraq was not a threat to us and was not involved with the 9-11 attacks.

President Bushes (41) hollow words of support got thousands of Shias killed when he promised to support opposition groups and then turned a blind eye when they staged an uprising.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

In February 2001, 7 months before the 9/11 attacks. Gallup polling company had a poll where it asked Americans if they supported using US military force to remove Saddam from power. 52% in the poll, a clear majority said YES

In 2001 I would have said yes to using military force against Iraq because SH was in violation of international law by not allowing UN inspectors in.

Why don't you cite the polls taken in 2003 in February where 54% of Americans polled wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time and not invade Iraq unless authorized by the UN?

Those polls are more timely and relevant to peoples's support of committing ground troops to an invasion. Military action can be air strikes and more Americans are prone to support that. Sending in ground troops is an entirely different commitment and should be used only as a last resort.