Bush's Lies Caused The Iraq War

[NotfooledbyW]

Its not a lie that the United States and other intelligence agencies around the world had intelligence that Saddam had WMD.

You are not responding to what I've written. On 07-13-2014 10:24 AM I wrote, “I have presented a case that Bush lied on March 17, 2003 that he claimed to have intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors."


No Democrats made that claim. I am not disputing that "the United States and other intelligence agencies around the world had intelligence that Saddam had WMD" in the past.


We all know that Saddam "had" WMD. Bush lied on March 17, 2003 because ten days before that he exposed the truth that he did not have any such incriminating intelligence that would justify a US and UK invasion.

If some intelligence was obtained after March 7, 2003 Bush was obligated as a UNSC member nation to offer that intelligence to the UN inspectors to be checked out. There was no offer because the inspectors left on March 18 an 19 because Bush was planning to invade. Are you suggesting that he lied to the UNSC by concealing intelligence from them?

 

[AmericanFirst]

You've got that right. Pretty low class of you to be joking about it.

There is no evidence Bush lied. But you keep pedaling THAT lie.

He absolutely lied about the wmds.

No, he didn't. Only libtards believe in lies, like the ones obamashitforbrains tells daily.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Its not a lie that the United States and other intelligence agencies around the world had intelligence that Saddam had WMD.

You are not responding to what I've written. On 07-13-2014 10:24 AM I wrote, “I have presented a case that Bush lied on March 17, 2003 that he claimed to have intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors."


No Democrats made that claim. I am not disputing that "the United States and other intelligence agencies around the world had intelligence that Saddam had WMD" in the past.


We all know that Saddam "had" WMD. Bush lied on March 17, 2003 because ten days before that he exposed the truth that he did not have any such incriminating intelligence that would justify a US and UK invasion.

If some intelligence was obtained after March 7, 2003 Bush was obligated as a UNSC member nation to offer that intelligence to the UN inspectors to be checked out. There was no offer because the inspectors left on March 18 an 19 because Bush was planning to invade. Are you suggesting that he lied to the UNSC by concealing intelligence from them?

We invaded Iraq because hussein kept violating un sanctions and not allowing inspectors where they needed to be. At least Bush was a better potus and had a spine.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It says that within the body of resolution 1441, that Iraq is in material breech of its obligations.

Are you backing away from your mistaken claim on 07-12-2014 at 02:28 PM when you wrote, "1441 already says that SADDAM is in material breech and in violation of resolution 1441 itself." You need to admit your error because the language of 1441 is written as follows:

The UNSC in Resolution 1441:

{{ “1.Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

“2.Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 and 12 below;


11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter. }}


Iraq was not in material breach of 1441 when it was written and passed in November 2002. That is a ridiculous claim.

Do you recognize that fact now?

 

[Kosh]

Its not a lie that the United States and other intelligence agencies around the world had intelligence that Saddam had WMD.

You are not responding to what I've written. On 07-13-2014 10:24 AM I wrote, “I have presented a case that Bush lied on March 17, 2003 that he claimed to have intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors."


No Democrats made that claim. I am not disputing that "the United States and other intelligence agencies around the world had intelligence that Saddam had WMD" in the past.


We all know that Saddam "had" WMD. Bush lied on March 17, 2003 because ten days before that he exposed the truth that he did not have any such incriminating intelligence that would justify a US and UK invasion.

If some intelligence was obtained after March 7, 2003 Bush was obligated as a UNSC member nation to offer that intelligence to the UN inspectors to be checked out. There was no offer because the inspectors left on March 18 an 19 because Bush was planning to invade. Are you suggesting that he lied to the UNSC by concealing intelligence from them?

Far left revisionism at it's best...

 

[NotfooledbyW]

We invaded Iraq because hussein kept violating un sanctions and not allowing inspectors where they needed to be.

There were no serious reports by Blix or el Beradai that the 2003 UNSC inspections by UNMOVIC or the IAEA were denied full access to sites by Iraq. Blix said that Iraq cooperated on process immediately with very few issues. Blix referred to cooperation on process meaning access to sites and other logistical requirements to allow the inspectors to do their work.

Saddam Hussein in December 2002 offered Bush to send US military and intelligence inspectors into Iraq to look for WMD firsthand. That offer in no way can be construed to mean that Iraq would not let inspectors access to all sites. You are quite wrong.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Far left revisionism at it's best...

What is revised? You'd have to dispute my facts to call it 'revisionism'. And If you've read my posts on this subject you'd realize that I'm quite a bit at odds with the US anti-war far left view point. So you are way off base on two counts already.

 

[Kosh]

We invaded Iraq because hussein kept violating un sanctions and not allowing inspectors where they needed to be.

There were no serious reports by Blix or el Beradai that the 2003 UNSC inspections by UNMOVIC or the IAEA were denied full access to sites by Iraq. Blix said that Iraq cooperated on process immediately with very few issues. Blix referred to cooperation on process meaning access to sites and other logistical requirements to allow the inspectors to do their work.

Saddam Hussein in December 2002 offered Bush to send US military and intelligence inspectors into Iraq to look for WMD firsthand. That offer in no way can be construed to mean that Iraq would not let inspectors access to all sites. You are quite wrong.

Oh my the far left will just ignore any history that does not fit with in their programmed talking points or propaganda.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No, he didn't.

Is that an argument? If it is, I see nothing that supports it coming from you or anyone else trying to defend Bush's lie on March 17, 2003 that I have been writing about.

 

[Kosh]

Far left revisionism at it's best...

What is revised? You'd have to dispute my facts to call it 'revisionism'. And If you've read my posts on this subject you'd realize that I'm quite a bit at odds with the US anti-war far left view point. So you are way off base on two counts already.

You have posted far left revisionism on several occasions and have been shown as such and to continue to post based on far left talking points and propaganda just goes to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are far left.

Just deal with it.

So I am correct on both accounts even if you choose to ignore it due to your far left programming.

 

[Kosh]

No, he didn't.

Is that an argument? If it is, I see nothing that supports it coming from you or anyone else trying to defend Bush's lie on March 17, 2003 that I have been writing about.

So you keep proving you are far left as in you know you posting bunk, but want to be proven wrong.

Typical far left mentality..

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oh my the far left will just ignore any history that does not fit with in their programmed talking points or propaganda.

I'm quite far from the 'far left'. However what 'history' are you seeing me 'ignore'?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You have posted far left revisionism on several occasions ...

If you have seen it, point it out so I can respond to what you are talking about. It is not possible to respond to one's imagination.

 

[Kosh]

Oh my the far left will just ignore any history that does not fit with in their programmed talking points or propaganda.

I'm quite far from the 'far left'. However what 'history' are you seeing me 'ignore'?

Wrong! You are far left and you trying to argue that the war in Iraq in 2003 was illegal, which has been debunked over and over.

Another far left poster that does not see that Iraq had a history before 2003.

 

[Kosh]

You have posted far left revisionism on several occasions ...

If you have seen it, point it out so I can respond to what you are talking about. It is not possible to respond to one's imagination.

It has already been pointed out and you ignore it.

No need for me to do what others have done since you have ignored them.

Another far left poster exposed...

 

[R.C. Christian]

Bush's foreign policy was guided by the think tanks and foreign policy leaders after the cold war. He saw an opportunity to expand the empire and so he did. Bush couldn't have given 1 god damn about Kurds, WMD or any of that stupid bullshit. He just used that to amuse you sheep and give an excuse for 10's of thousands of fools to go on a fool's errand only to be shot to hell while exterminating 10's of thousands of Iraqi civilians for no good reason, LOL.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It has already been pointed out and you ignore it.

No need for me to do what others have done since you have ignored them.

What others and which posts? Its obvious that you have nothing.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Bush's foreign policy was guided by the think tanks and foreign policy leaders after the cold war.

Bush's foreign policy of kicking UN inspectors out and then invading Iraq became defined as a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. There wouid have been no ground invasion of Iraq were it not for the Pentagon and WTC being hit on Bush's watch.

Bush and most of the country's of the world were correct to demand that Iraq be brought into compliance with the UNSC resolutions in the WMD matter.

Where Bush went wrong was to seek war rather than let the inspections continue.

 

[Kosh]

It has already been pointed out and you ignore it.

No need for me to do what others have done since you have ignored them.

What others and which posts? Its obvious that you have nothing.

Oh my! These far left posters love to pretend things do no exist..

 

[Kosh]

Bush's foreign policy was guided by the think tanks and foreign policy leaders after the cold war.

Bush's foreign policy of kicking UN inspectors out and then invading Iraq became defined as a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. There wouid have been no ground invasion of Iraq were it not for the Pentagon and WTC being hit on Bush's watch.

Bush and most of the country's of the world were correct to demand that Iraq be brought into compliance with the UNSC resolutions in the WMD matter.

Where Bush went wrong was to seek war rather than let the inspections continue.

More evidence proving my comments about this poster being far left..