Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Tell that to the thousands of America's finest that gave their blood that something was 'saved'.
You don't know about the UNSC long term monitoring that was being set up in 2003 that was to follow the end of the inspection phase.
Bush told you that he had proof that was without a doubt that Iraq was hiding lethal weapons from the inspectors. A week before that he informed the world that he had no proof of such a violation.
How can you believe that Bush was not lying to make war?
That is not my quote. It is an edited version of the post #476 from U2Edge. Those are U2Edge words, not mine.
You are right. I corrected it.
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.
Bush had intelligence that showed Saddam was hiding a stash of chemical weapons and some nuke material. It proved to be true.
The reason Bush et all lied about Iraq is the incredible profits they knew they would make. There was nothing accidental about it. It was planned for a long time before they sprung it on congress and the rest of us.
1441 stated that Saddam was already in violation of multiple UN security council resolutions as well as the Gulf War Ceacefire.
They, not we. The profits "THEY" would make. Private corporations. KBR, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, not to mention the medical industry with all of the emergencies, injuries, amputees, etc. Big, big money. No-bid contracts and otherwise.The reason Bush et all lied about Iraq is the incredible profits they knew they would make. There was nothing accidental about it. It was planned for a long time before they sprung it on congress and the rest of us.
Where is this incredible profit that we made?
1441 stated that Saddam was already in violation of multiple UN security council resolutions as well as the Gulf War Ceacefire.
"Who declared Saddam Hussein to be in violation of UNSC Resolution 1441 which granted Iraq a final opportunity to comply?"
1441 stated that Saddam was already in violation of multiple UN security council resolutions as well as the Gulf War Ceacefire.
"Who declared Saddam Hussein to be in violation of UNSC Resolution 1441 which granted Iraq a final opportunity to comply?"
Do not feel bad if you refuse to answer that simple question. No "Iraq-Invader enthusiast/aficionado" can field an answer because the answer is not good. This will be another for the record from the fading remnants of the "Bush-Lied" deniers.
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
.
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.
.
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.
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.
Tell that to the thousands of America's finest that gave their blood that something was 'saved'.
You don't know about the UNSC long term monitoring that was being set up in 2003 that was to follow the end of the inspection phase.
Bush told you that he had proof that was without a doubt that Iraq was hiding lethal weapons from the inspectors. A week before that he informed the world that he had no proof of such a violation.
How can you believe that Bush was not lying to make war
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.
About that blind obsession thing, let me know when you find the evidence about the collusion and connection to Saddam and al Qaeda. The WMD allegations only work when you have the collusion and connection thingy figured out. Until you do, you seem to be the one with the blind obsession.
The reason Bush et all lied about Iraq is the incredible profits they knew they would make. There was nothing accidental about it. It was planned for a long time before they sprung it on congress and the rest of us.