Did Bush lie about WMD?

[rtm]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I think it's relevant!

Everyone is so quick to accuse GW of lying. It would almost seem as what he did was copy Clintons speech. The similarities are striking.

In my opinion, Saddam was a threat to neighboring countries and his own people then as much as he was this time. I think Clinton was right in ordering strikes then, and I think GW has come in to finish what was started.

Sorry, but it's already a proven fact that he wasn't although I'm sure your fuhrer has told you different

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by rtm
Sorry, but it's already a proven fact that he wasn't although I'm sure your fuhrer has told you different

Interesting video. A lot could have changed in 2 years though. I'm not privy to all the intel that the international community had, but it was convincing enough for many. What I just watched doesn't make a "fact" though. That just means they were confident he wasn't a threat in 2001.

I'll agree that there are too many versions and conflicting stories. I'm not sure we'll ever know the entire truth but it's clear we haven't yet.

I still think regardless of the WMD that the regime needed to be taken out anyway, which has always been my stance.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Interesting video. A lot could have changed in 2 years though. I'm not privy to all the intel that the international community had, but it was convincing enough for many. What I just watched doesn't make a "fact" though. That just means they were confident he wasn't a threat in 2001.

I'll agree that there are too many versions and conflicting stories. I'm not sure we'll ever know the entire truth but it's clear we haven't yet.

I still think regardless of the WMD that the regime needed to be taken out anyway, which has always been my stance.

I think this gets at the problem. Lots of people wanted Saddam gone (though perhaps not a majority of Americans without an urgent WMD threat), and as Richard Pearle noted, WMDs was the one issue on which everyone could agree. It was also the one issue that was most faulty, and now our occupation lacks serious legitimacy. Had a case been made on humanitarian grounds, it may well ahve gone through the UN. But it also may well have failed here. We don't have a history of sending our boys to die for others' human rights.

So was inflating the WMD threat the means that justified the ends? The ends are looking a lot less rosey than most thought; far fewer nations, friends or foes, now take our views and intelligence seriously; the whole think could yet backfire. I don't think that's worth it. Then, if we want to make a huge investment in humanity, Africa would be a much better place to start than Iraq.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
So was inflating the WMD threat the means that justified the ends? The ends are looking a lot less rosey than most thought; far fewer nations, friends or foes, now take our views and intelligence seriously; the whole think could yet backfire. I don't think that's worth it. Then, if we want to make a huge investment in humanity, Africa would be a much better place to start than Iraq.

But it wasn't just our intel. Didn't other countries contribute their intel as well? I know Great Britain did. I'd like to know what similiarities and what differences the various countries gathered.

I still think the capabilities of the US intelligence will be respected. We have some outstanding people in the intel community. How our politicans tend to share and interpret the data is what's suspect.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
But it wasn't just our intel. Didn't other countries contribute their intel as well? I know Great Britain did. I'd like to know what similiarities and what differences the various countries gathered.

I still think the capabilities of the US intelligence will be respected. We have some outstanding people in the intel community. How our politicans tend to share and interpret the data is what's suspect.

Britain, France, Russia, and Israel were all gathering intel on Iraq. Their respective positions on the validity of the threat broke down more or less according to economic and strategic interests. Britain's intel, with its 45-minute deployment threat, was especially farcical. Italy, or an unofficial Italian source, also came up with an obvious forgery about uranium from Niger. Other western European countries and Canada kept themselves briefed, and none seemed very urgently concerned about the Iraqi WMD threat. Iran, who had the most to worry about, wasn't very concerned. Niether was Saudi Arabia.

Shoddy intel on this one seems to be mostly a US-UK effort, and elements of both the CIA and MI-6 are really upset by the way they've been manipulated, and not just on WMDs. This may help explain certain leaks.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Originally posted by SLClemens
http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx

i'll quote the same upi article i've quoted before:

In addition to the 397 service members who have died and the 1,967 wounded, 6,861 troops were medically evacuated for non-combat conditions between March 19 and Oct. 30, the Army Surgeon General's office said.

i was a little off on non combat number but we lose guys even here in the states during non combat training etc etc

 

[Sevendogs]

He is an outstanding in manipulation and political lies. However, he is a naive average American, who does not understand other cultures. Besides, he has a mind of a little man who accidenatally got much power. This is a vengeance war for his father, plus he wanted to pelase big corporations, which helped him to get elected. This Iraq war is a fiasco unfolding.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Sevendogs
He is an outstanding in manipulation and political lies. However, he is a naive average American, who does not understand other cultures. Besides, he has a mind of a little man who accidenatally got much power. This is a vengeance war for his father, plus he wanted to pelase big corporations, which helped him to get elected. This Iraq war is a fiasco unfolding.

Sounds like you just about got all the propoganda bullshit off other boards. Spouting the same crap over and over doesn't make it true. How about you back up your assertions with some facts? Can you do that?

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Sounds like you just about got all the propoganda bullshit off other boards. Spouting the same crap over and over doesn't make it true. How about you back up your assertions with some facts? Can you do that?

Hi Sevendogs,

Don't worry too much about Jimmy. When he comes across difficult problems and questions he'd rather not explore in detail - like why we're investing so much energy in Iraq when there are bigger problems elsewhere - his typical response is just to cry out that one's argument is lacking facts. Trust me, he can't even come up with specific figures to support his assertion that Iron Hammer is a grand success because it has lowered coalition casualties, beyond repeating some Pentagon assertion that there's been a 70% decrease in attacks (though 70% since when no one knows, lol). Nor can he even see the fallacy or trying to judge success by a week-to-week examination of body counts. So when he cries out for facts and suggests his own arguments are factual, I'd take it with a grain of salt.

 

[jimnyc]

You are an idiot. You aren't even worthy of responding to anymore. I've backed up every last thing I've ever stated with relevant facts.

You in return have not. You provided a few links to charts which DID NOT support your assertions.

Let's just start up with more namecalling of the soldiers why don't we? You're about 2 seconds from no longer being welcome here.

 

[Sevendogs]

We did not find WMD in Iraq, because they were not there. This was never confirmed by CIA before and after the war. Bush selected and distorted information provided by CIA to mislead American people to start war against Iraq. Now, suicide bombers became WMD. We should care about schools run by clerics. They produce thousands of suicide bombers and they will kill and kill using all other weapons, including WMD of all sorts. They will get chemical weapons, radioactive weapons and microbial weapons sooner or later and they will use them to get to paradize.

 

[jimnyc]

So now the CIA is solely responsible for backing up our intelligence? Preach to the international community that contributed. Also thank the democrats who read the very same contributed data and backed the war.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
So now the CIA is solely responsible for backing up our intelligence?

Uh...yeah. Perhaps not solely but they do recieve all intelligence and retain the expertise to analyze it.

Preach to the international community that contributed. Also thank the democrats who read the very same contributed data and backed the war.

They are claiming the administration cherry-picked the data they were shown and used their influence "sex-up" the iraqi intell. They even went so far as to set up a 2 man team in the defence department to provide intelligence briefs to the administration telling them Iraq was doing things the CIA wouldn't put its' name too. Additionaly, the Democrats didn't invade and occupy Iraq, that was GWB and the repubs.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Also thank the democrats who read the very same contributed data and backed the war.

Then thank the Democrats for slashing CIA funding during the Clinton years, and then placing the blame for 9/11 at their feet.

 

[jimnyc]

Uh...yeah. Perhaps not solely but they do recieve all intelligence and retain the expertise to analyze it

As does the rest of the international community. The CIA is just one notch out of many.

They are claiming the administration cherry-picked the data they were shown and used their influence "sex-up" the iraqi intell.

And nobody else in the world (besides France and Germany) noticed the flaws in analyzing this data? Kinda dumb to throw up your problems with their findings after the fact, when they agreed with the decisions the first time around.

They even went so far as to set up a 2 man team in the defence department to provide intelligence briefs to the administration telling them Iraq was doing things the CIA wouldn't put its' name too.

Why in the world would congress have went along with the war? Maybe because most of the international community had similar data and similar conclusions.

Additionaly, the Democrats didn't invade and occupy Iraq, that was GWB and the repubs.

Asinine comments only tend to render your whole argument laughable.

 

[jimnyc]

Let's see, who was involved in voting for war:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

Looks like it wasn't just Bush and the republicans after all.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
As does the rest of the international community. The CIA is just one notch out of many.And nobody else in the world (besides France and Germany) noticed the flaws in analyzing this data? Kinda dumb to throw up your problems with their findings after the fact, when they agreed with the decisions the first time around...Why in the world would congress have went along with the war? Maybe because most of the international community had similar data and similar conclusions.

Actually the widespread doubt about the validity of our stated intelligence was the major reason the UN refused to sanction our invasion. As for the Democrats, we have thier moral weakness to thank for a lot of this. We know Doug Feith, the DOD employee running the intll cell in defense, was supplying information to the administration, they Senate Intell committee is investigating that now.

Asinine comments only tend to render your whole argument laughable.

Sorry dude, your boy pulled the pin on this handgrenade, the dems are going to crucify him for it (regardless of their support for the war or lack thereof, it's called politics). He is just going to have to take his medicine this time. I'll stand by this comment, and am waiting to find out why you think it is assanine

Additionaly, the Democrats didn't invade and occupy Iraq, that was GWB and the repubs.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Let's see, who was involved in voting for war:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/[/url]
Looks like it wasn't just Bush and the republicans after all.

"authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction"
To bad they didn't have any WMDs', huh. Now the question is who lied to us about this, and what are we going to do with them. This little error is going to costs hundreds of billions (the price of the occupation) and your willingness to dismiss it as an "oops" seems to me to be motivated by a partisan interest in protecting GWB.

 

[jimnyc]

Sorry dude, your boy pulled the pin on this handgrenade, the dems are going to crucify him for it (regardless of their support for the war or lack thereof, it's called politics). He is just going to have to take his medicine this time. I'll stand by this comment, and am waiting to find out why you think it is assanine

I think it's ASININE to hold one person or party responsible for the war when it was a collective decision to go forth.

He'll take his medicine by being re-elected to a 2nd term. I'm willing to forego the upcoming year and lay money on the line now. You can all play the "let's wait and see" card, but it'll be that much sweeter when the man that is despised so much wins, again.

"authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction"

And they were supposed to provide all data and weapons, which they did not. I saw this fault from Iraq and so did our government, democrats and republicans alike.

Now the question is who lied to us about this, and what are we going to do with them.

Whether or not the intelligence was faulty does not make one a liar. You have the right to those suspicions, but proving them is another case. I don't think there will be any evidence of wrongdoing found.

This little error is going to costs hundreds of billions (the price of the occupation) and your willingness to dismiss it as an "oops" seems to me to be motivated by a partisan interest in protecting GWB.

Even if the data concerning WMD was flawed, the regime still needed to be removed. The need to dismantle their operations still existed. The cost would have been the same, and well worth it in the name of freedom, regardless of whom that freedom is for.

I side with our administration, and have also went against them on countless levels. To say that I am motivated by partisan interest is to admit you are clueless as to what I stand for.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I think it's ASININE to hold one person or party responsible for the war when it was a collective decision to go forth.

Their can be little doubt the decision to wage this war came from the Whitehouse. The lobbying of the congress and the UN was done with the intell that they provided. The president wasted few oppurtunities to spread this deceat, giving four policy speeches in as many months quoting chapter and verse from the erronious intel. He is the president of the United States, he isn't responsible for the words that come out of his mouth, who is?

He'll take his medicine by being re-elected to a 2nd term. I'm willing to forego the upcoming year and lay money on the line now. You can all play the "let's wait and see" card, but it'll be that much sweeter when the man that is despised so much wins, again.

I have no emotional investment in GWB one way or the other. Mostly I find him kind of...simple. Simple in his outlook on the world, equally simple in his proposed solutions. For this reason I have no faith in his expensive and extreme policies and would be happy to seem him defeated on '04.

And they were supposed to provide all data and weapons, which they did not. I saw this fault from Iraq and so did our government, democrats and republicans alike.

We're a little far down the road to be blaming Hussein for this, don't you think? He was an idiot, now let's figure out who the idiot was who couldn't figure that out.

Whether or not the intelligence was faulty does not make one a liar. You have the right to those suspicions, but proving them is another case. I don't think there will be any evidence of wrongdoing found.

There is allready evidence, in the senate intelligence committee. They are going to be putting out a report shortly, at that point I will be more inclined to discuss criminal behavior on the part of the administration.

Even if the data concerning WMD was flawed, the regime still needed to be removed. The need to dismantle their operations still existed. The cost would have been the same, and well worth it in the name of freedom, regardless of whom that freedom is for.

Why are we getting the bill for Iraqi "freedom"? If the world needed to remove this menace, why wouldn't the world act. The reasop is he is hardly the only bloodthirsty maniac to run a third world country. He just had the misfortune to do that atop the second largest oil reserve on the face of the planet.

To say that I am motivated by partisan interest is to admit you are clueless as to what I stand for.

What do you stand for, Jim? What would I have to show you to prove to you that we were led down the primrose path by these clowns, and then how far would you be willing to go to see that it did not happen again?