Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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
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.
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 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.
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!.
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.
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.
Goddam, Foo...
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.
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.
'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.
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.
COMPLIANCE IS SADDAM's responsibility, not the UN's!
Bush lost patience with Saddam. He was acting like the Whitehouse and the IRS. Hiding evidence from inspectors.