Bush's Lies Caused The Iraq War

[jc456]

whatever gets you through the nights,

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Bush had intelligence that showed Saddam was hiding a stash of chemical weapons and some nuke material. It proved to be true.

Nothing proved to be true. Bush said he had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspecters in
March 2003. There has been no proof that the regime in Iraq was hiding anything from the UN inspectors. What are you talking about?

And if Bush had intelligence on March 17 2003 that WMD were being hidden, that intelligence would have to define what it was and where it was and who in the regime was hiding it. So if Bush did know through his intelligence sources what and where it was, how did it get moved to Syria and then Bush wages a war in Iraq when the threat of WMD falling into the hands of terrorists in Syria. That makes no sense whatever and if you believe the 'moved to Syria' line then that essentially confirms that Bush lied on March 17 2003 because he had no idea where WMD was being hidden or who was in control of it or moving it.

Bush can't truthfully claim he knows WMD is being hidden without knowing what and where it is being hidden and by whom.

Can you explain why Bush did not know the WMD was being moved to Syria and to this day has never defended the CIA by giving credence to all such farcical claims of that nature?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq | Mother Jones

Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq | Alternet

The Lies We Believed (And Still Believe) About Iraq | Blog | BillMoyers.com

George wasn't the only one lying to us -

Watch: The 1994 Video Dick Cheney Doesn?t Want You to See | Occupy Democrats

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

 

[Slyhunter]

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?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

1441 stated that Saddam was already in violation of multiple UN security council resolutions as well as the Gulf War Ceacefire.

That is not a response to my question. "Who declared Saddam Hussein to be in violation of UNSC Resolution 1441 which granted Iraq a final opportunity to comply?"

Do you wish to try again? Do you know what giving Iraq a final opportunity to comply means?

 

[KNB]

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?

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.

You know how they say that the war will cost us upwards of $4 trillion? Who do you think we're paying that money to?

 

[Camp]

Money for Nothing | The American Conservative

Even the American Conservative called it "Money for Nothing". Bush cronies were sent to Iraq to head up all kinds of made up useless bureaucracies and given giant sized bags full of cold hard American cash to loose and make disappear. Cash was sent via pallets loaded onto cargo planes. Estimates still range in the 12 to 40 billion dollar range of missing and unaccounted cash. That's billion, with a b.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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.

 

[Redfish]

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.

If Bush lied about it, so did both Clintons, Kerry, Gore, the UN, the UK, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Japan, et al. Everyone had the same flawed intel that Bush had and they all came to the same flawed conclusion about it. NO ONE LIED.

The Iraq war as a stupid waste of american lives and money, thats the lesson that we need to learn from it, just like viet nam.

Until we get the partisan bullshit out of the discussion, we are doomed to make the same stupid mistakes again.

Stop trying to rewrite history for political reasons, and focus on not fucking up the future.

 

[KNB]

Blah blah blah, blame everyone else except for the President and his puppeteers.

Bush lied, Cheney lied, Rumsfeld lied, Wolfowitz lied, Rice lied, they all lied, declassified Bush administration documents prove it. Intelligence was fixed around the policy. They made shit up to scare everyone into accepting an invasion of Iraq that could not have been justified otherwise.

DECLASSIFIED GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS. Read them and learn.

 

[U2Edge]

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

.

Not a credible source. A flibertarian with an axe to grind. I've seen her bullshit story on TV.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

.

Simply removing Saddam from Kuwait and eliminating a current stockpile of WMD, does not alone end the problem or suddenly make Saddam not a threat. That's like saying that Germany was no longer a threat after World War I because their military was removed from France and Belgium, disarmed and reduced to a tiny 100,000. WE KNOW THE HISTORY ON THAT ONE!

More importantly, lets not forget that Saddam invaded and annexed Kuwait without using WMD. So this is not just about WMD. Finally, whats to prevent SADDAM from rebuilding his military capacities from the past, but conventional and unconventional, given that the sanctions and weapons embargo placed on him had collapsed by 2002.

Its incredible that you believe that actions taken the early 1990s meant that Saddam would be forever disarmed and not able to attack or invade anyone in any way shape or form. SADDAM is sitting on BILLIONS of dollars of oil and as long as any entity has such a large amount of wealth, they will have the ability to cause trouble and be a threat. I mean, after all, look at what 19 people armed with box cutters and a few thousand dollars did on 9-11.

SADDAM was a huge threat and it was a necessity that he be removed from power. Bush removed him from power at the right time, before he could rebuild his past military capabilities and in doing so saved the lives of thousands of military personal and civilians in the region.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

The poll asked if Americans were willing to send troops back to the Persian Gulf to invade Iraq and remove him from power. 52% said yes. This question was asked in again in the last months of 2002 and early 2003 and the poll numbers increased in support over what they had been in 2001.

When Bush launched the invasion in March, over 70% of Americans supported it.


But more important than all those polls was the one taken in November of 2004. It was the Presidential Election. Bush/Cheney were running for re-election. The liberals, Hollywood and the music business had led a full charge to make sure Bush was not re-elected. Michael Moore came out with his blockbuster movie Fahrenheit 911 and big rock stars played music concerts together all over the country, called vote for change. By then the invasion and removal of Saddam was 18 months ago, all the accusations about lying and the fact that WMD was not found, that prisoners had been tortured was all out in the open.

Still, the American people objectively looked at what happened and they voted for George Bush, giving him a majority victory in the popular vote, the first majority victory in the popular vote since 1988! A resounding endorsement of George Bush's policies on Iraq by the AMERICAN PEOPLE!

 

[U2Edge]

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'.

There is no other group in American society that more overwhelmingly supports the removal of Saddam Hussian than the members of the United States military. They also tend to vote more Republican and 80% of them voted to re-elect George Bush based on the MILITARY TIMES POLLS.

Of course, you would have rather waited to send in the military until Saddam had vast stocks of sarin gas and other weapons that he could use on our invading troops. What type of logic says, lets wait until Saddam has fully re-armed before we remove him from power?

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

Inspections and monitoring can only work if the country being inspected and monitored is willing to cooperate. Its rather easy to hide and prevent unarmed inspectors from accurately be able to see what their looking for. That's why drugs are so easily smuggled into the United States and other countries despite all the inspections and monitoring that goes on. The power to conceal in this case far outweighs the power to inspect and monitor.

Bush had intelligence which showed Saddam did have WMD. This intelligence later turned out to be inaccurate. THAT IS NOT LYING. LYING IS WHEN YOU KNOW FOR A FACT SOMETHING IS NOT TRUE, and YOU TELL IT AS BEING THE TRUTH ANYWAYS. That never happened.

No one lied, and Saddam was removed, which is great thing for the United States and the World.

 

[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.

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.

Sorry, but WMD and military weapons work just fine without Al Qaeda or collusion or a connection with Al Qaeda. Saddam doesn't need Al Qaeda for the use of any of his military capabilities. Al Qaeda did not exist when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, and the world responded by passed 18 UN Security Council Resolutions against Saddam including resolutions requiring him to disarm of all WMD because of his past use of it and the threat it posed to the international community.

But when your blind and obsessed and narrowly define things, your unlikely to know that. You are also unlikely to know that Saddam used WMD hundreds of times against Iranian troops, used WMD hundreds of times against Kurds and others in his own country, invaded and launched attacks on four different countries, invaded and annexed Kuwait, the first leader to that since Adolf Hitler did in the 1940s, launched hundreds of ballistic missiles against Saudi Arabia and Israel, burned hundreds of oil wells in Kuwait and dumped massive amounts of oil into the Persian Gulf causing and environmental disaster.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Yep, and Bush is also an alien from alpha centauri! LOL