Bush's Lies Caused The Iraq War

[BlindBoo]

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....

Knock it off, this shit is debunked B.S. and has been for a long time.

You need new material.

Yes they did, and so did President Bush. Fact is a majority of Democrats in Congress voted against giving President Bush the deciding power too.

 

[BlindBoo]

Please prove it was a lie.

You must know that when a President cites 'intelligence sources' as evidence for starting a war of choice that we the people are at the mercy of the President with regard to 'proving' that evidence to be solid and genuine or not.

Bush's lie here was in his use of the word 'evidence'. Whatever Bush had with regard to the Saddam / AQ connection was flimsy evidence at best. Bush should have used the word "information" or "leads" in place of "evidence" in order to be truthful.

Hey Sparky...

Bush had to share the intelligence of many nations with congress before he got approval to take military action.

Now, you may allow yourself to be convinced by irresponsible politicians looking to be elected when they responded to questions of "why did you support the war" with the claim that the intelligence Bush gave them was cherry picked......

But only a fool would believe that the intelligence of OTHER nations was ALSO cherry picked by the heads of those nations to accommodate Bush.

So are you a fool?

"Curveball doubts were shared with CIA, says ex-German foreign minister."

Curveball doubts were shared with CIA, says ex-German foreign minister | World news | theguardian.com

 

[BlindBoo]

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....

Knock it off, this shit is debunked B.S. and has been for a long time.

You need new material.

Never been debunked. If it had the debunking articles and sources would be all over the net. I found two attempts by rw blogs that concentrated of WMD's with quotes from Clinton, etc.,. All statements made years earlier or statements from people based on the Bush administration lies.
The Downing Street Memo's leave no doubt as they document the US and British purposeful agenda of misleading the public. With the declassified US documents added to the Downing Street Memo's there isn't even a serious attempt to debunk the lies.

Listen up genius....

If there was proof that President Bush lied and ended up sending thousands of men and women to their death based on the lie.......families of those thousands would be suing for wrongful deaths.

Now you can say that is ridiculous......but this is a society where a man sues for getting caught by the TV cameras while sleeping at a ball game.

So say whatever you want....but out of 4000...there would be hundreds suing WITH YOUR ALLEGED PROOF.

SO back off. The "Bush lied" was nothing more than a campaign ploy by Clinton when she had to explain why she voted for a war that was so unpopular during campaign season.

You are just too dense to recognize it.

CNN.com - Ex-CIA official: WMD evidence ignored - Apr 23, 2006

Drumheller said that, when then-CIA Director George Tenet told President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other high-ranking officials that Sabri was providing information, his comments were met with excitement that proved short-lived.

"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," Drumheller is quoted as saying. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - Salon.com

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

 

[Camp]

No they didn't. Continuing to post that false claim, does not make it become true.

Everyone had the same intel, everyone came to the same erroneous conclusions about it. NO one lied. Stating something that you believe to be true is not lying.

was the UN lying?, was the EU? were both Clintons lying? Was Kerry? Saudi arabia?, the UK ?.

It was bad intel. Now, why was it bad? Who was president when the bad intel was generated? Any idea? Hint---it wasn't Bush.

You still won't read the declassified Bush government documents that prove that they lied to all of us about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Colin Powell lied, Curveball lied, Rumsfeld lied, Bush lied, Cheney lied, Wolfowitz lied, Perle lied, Rice lied. They all lied.

Declassified government documents.

Shut up and read them.

I have read them asshole, they do not say what you claim. Now STFU before you make a complete jackass of yourself.

You read them? You are claiming to have read over 2,500 pages of sourced documents and White Papers highlighting government lies and were not convinced that government officials lied? You would have also had to have read some of the thousands of sources used as references. Which ones did you find to be misleading or misinterpreted by the authors of the White Papers or source based documents you read?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Thanks for confirming IRaq had WMD.
Next.

No one denied that Iraq 'had' active WMD prior to 2003 and that there were remnants of that past remaining in Iraq to this day. Bush lied on March 17 2003 when he claimed he had no doubt that Iraq was hiding WMD from UN inspectors when he had no proof of such concealment.

Had Bush had proof of WMD being hidden from inspectors in 2003 Bush would have sent troops to immediately secure the proof when the invasion was underway.

Think about it Rabbi. Since Bush claimed he knew two days prior to the invasion that SH was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from the inspectors, he would have had to know without a doubt what and where this WMD was for certain. And we all know he had no clue as to where it was.

So Bush lied to start a war.

 

[Contumacious]

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

WUT?

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

10 year old article. There are only a handful of people left who defend Bush and his administration as not being liars. Most of them can be found here on this thread.

They can't handle the truth.

.

 

[Slyhunter]

You still won't read the declassified Bush government documents that prove that they lied to all of us about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Colin Powell lied, Curveball lied, Rumsfeld lied, Bush lied, Cheney lied, Wolfowitz lied, Perle lied, Rice lied. They all lied.

Declassified government documents.

Shut up and read them.

I have read them asshole, they do not say what you claim. Now STFU before you make a complete jackass of yourself.

You read them? You are claiming to have read over 2,500 pages of sourced documents and White Papers highlighting government lies and were not convinced that government officials lied? You would have also had to have read some of the thousands of sources used as references. Which ones did you find to be misleading or misinterpreted by the authors of the White Papers or source based documents you read?

You keep ignoring the fact that based on the same sources Democrats thought Saddam had WMD. And I'm still convinced he had it and hide it in Syria.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Then why did so many democrats vote to invade?

If you read the actual AUMF you would know why. Because Saddam Hussen was in violation of international law since 1998 when he did not allow inspectors into Iraq.

The trouble for Bush defenders is that from December 2002 on, SH did allow inspectors in and that meant SH was not in violation of his disarmament obligations and international law.

You cannot blame Democrats for Bush's lone decision to force peaceful inspections to end thereby choosing to disarm Iraq that was disarmed by war and death and destruction.

Bush was the Decider remember? That was not a Democrat decision.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You keep ignoring the fact that based on the same sources Democrats thought Saddam had WMD.

Your choice of the word 'thought' is significant. That term applies to many in October 2002 when Saddam was not allowing UN inspectors in.

So I am not ignoring that fact at all and never have.

What you are ignoring on the other hand is that most informed people ceased to 'think' Iraq had WMD as the UN inspections proceeded from December 2002 to March 17 2003.

That is a real problem for those still trying to defend Bush.

Bush's decision to end peaceful inspections to start a war is not defendable.

No rational being can work up an argument to defend that decision.

 

[TooTall]

Sometimes Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction; sometimes not. Depends on what suits these left wing loons at the time. The Truth is irrelevant.

No one argued that SH never had or never used WMD's. The fact is Bush lied on March 17 2003 when he claimed that he had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors.

Iraq was hiding nothing at that point in time and most in the world realize Bush lied about it.

These are lies and all three of them knew they were when they told them.

President Obama’s “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” President Richard Nixon’s "I am not a crook," and President Bill Clinton’s "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

President Bush stating the facts as presented to him by the CIA and other free world intelligence agencies are not lies.

Learn the difference!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

On 06-20-2014 at 02:25 PM RetiredGySgt wrote, "There is no evidence Bush lied" which is not true.

There is evidence that Bush did not have any intelligence on March 7, 2003 that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding WMD from UN inspectors at that time.

Here it is:

Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution.

The Security Council - Decides that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded by resolution 1441 (2002) unless, on or before 17 March 2003, the Council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations under resolution 1441(2002) and previous relevant resolutions, and is yielding possession to UNMOVIC and the IAEA of all weapons, weapon delivery and support systems and structures, prohibited by resolution 687 (1991) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and all information regarding prior destruction of such items;

http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/res-iraq-07mar03-en-rev.pdf

This makes it impossible that Bush was telling the truth on March 17, 2003 when he claimed:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

Bush and Blair were required by UN Res 1441 to provide intelligence to the UNSC and the inspectors in order to have it vetted in accordance with international law. It is obvious that Bush and Blair had no intelligence on March 7 2003 that left no doubt that Iraq was not yielding possession to UNMOVIC and the IAEA of all weapons and was in fact concealing them.

Yet one week later Bush claims to have that intelligence. He lied. He had nothing as was proven by the results after the invasion.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

President Bush stating the facts as presented to him by the CIA and other free world intelligence agencies are not lies.

Public facts were emanating from the UN inspections on the ground in Iraq and those facts were refuting the public intelligence being cited by Bush for two months prior to the start of the US invasion of Iraq.

See my post preceding this one.

How could the the UNSC conclude that Iraq had demonstrated full unconditional compliance with Resolution 1441 if Bush could present conclusive evidence that Iraq was concealing WMD from inspectors at that time? Bush had nothing that could hold up to UN WMD inspector scrutiny.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ODD...ISIS who captured and killed Iraquis and used their heads as soccer balls NOW has in their possession one such place...you know the WMD's in Iraq that don't exist. YOU are a naïve PAWN.

You have revealed how uninformed you are on the relevance of WMD in Iraq and Bush's decision to invade Iraq because of it. No one says that the remnants of WMD did not exist at this chemical plant or many other storage sites across Iraq. That plant was known to inspectors in 2003 and Iraq was obligated to declare the existence of whatever was there and it is obvious these items were declared. This is no 'surprise find of WMD.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

So why did so many democrats vote for a lie?

It was not a lie in October 2002 because Saddam Hussein was in violation of international law and had not allowed inspectors into Iraq since 1998. Why is that so confusing to so many people.

 

[Mr. H.]

Our Nation is our history, for good or bad.

But it is still our Nation.

Well, up until 2008 anyway.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Saddam had and used WMDs that is indisputable,only to the willfully ignorant.

Why do you think you are making a point with your comment? No one disputes that Saddam had and used WMD's. Bush lied in March 2003 when he claimed to have intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was concealing WMD from UN inspectors at that time. If Bush actually had hard intelligence that proved Iraq was hiding WMD from the inspectors he was supposed to give it to the inspectors so it could be verified. Bush obviously could not share his supposed mid-March 2003 intelligence with inspectors because he knew it would be dismissed by the inspectors very quickly.

 

[KNB]

Of course everyone knew that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein used WMD with the full permission of the Reagan administration.

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein

But the US government knew that Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities were severely diminished after the 1991 Gulf War.
Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction

So intelligence was fixed by the Bush administration after 9/11 to justify a preemptive invasion of Iraq.
U.S. Intelligence and Iraq WMD

 

[Billy000]

I find it absolutely astounding the Rightwingers on this board would defend Bush's fraudulent war but will harp on something as insignificant as the semantics Obama used for describing the Benghazi attack.

You people have the maturity of toddlers.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

When you add it all up, it appears that George Bush, like a lot of other people, was wrong about Saddam Hussein having stockpiles of WMDs. But without question, he did not lie about it.

John Hawkins: Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About The Conflict In Iraq

John Hawkins does not address the significance of UN inspectors arrival in Iraq in December 2002. Regardless of what Democrats believed or did not believe, it was Bush and only Bush who was in a position to decide whether to invade Iraq or let the UN inspections be the means and the way forward to disarm Iraq. Bush lied about having intelligence that was more accurate and meaningful than what 200 inspectors were doing on the ground inside Iraq prior to the invasion. And Bush was offered by Saddam Hussein in December 2002 to bring the FBI, CIA and US Military WMD experts into Iraq peacefully to work alongside the inspectors to verify that the WMD were not there. The White House response to that offer was to let the UN handle it. So they should have let the UN handle it. Democrats did not make the decision to not allow the CIA to actually go in and get first hand intelligence on the ground in Iraq. Bush made that decision on his own also.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I find it absolutely astounding the Rightwingers on this board would defend Bush's fraudulent war but will harp on something as insignificant as the semantics Obama used for describing the Benghazi attack.

You people have the maturity of toddlers.

It should be noted that the Bush-Iraq-Invasion defenders here have not tried to defend Bush's claim on March 17, 2003 to have intelligence that proved beyond doubt that Iraq was 'concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised' from UN inspectors. I have not seen for all this time any claims by Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry that Bush shared that intelligence with them or anyone else. Yet that is the intelligence that forced Bush to make the decision to end peaceful inspections and start a war to disarm a 'weapon-less' Iraq of WMD. There is no defense of that lie, and I expect our right-winger friends here must be having difficulty in dealing with this point and facts.

We can tell more by the non-response by Bush-Iraq-Invasion defenders than by their RW Talking Point response that we have seen thus far.