The Bush Admin. Never Lied To Justify the Invasion of Iraq.

[Dot Com]

^ that

 

[Dayton3]

It was no accident that Halliburton just happened to be ramped up and ready to go to war and it was no accident that Halliburton received NO-BID contracts for that war. .[/SIZE]

You do realize don't you that

1) No bid contracts are common for specialized government work.

2) Halliburton was receiving no bid contracts for U.S. military operations in the Middle East throughout the CLINTON Admin.

 

[Yurt]

After 9-11 we gave Bush a 9-11 Card

It allowed him to do anything he thought necessary to fight terrorism. We gave him the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Afghanistan and even looked the other way when he engaged in torture

But what Bush really wanted was Iraq. But nobody could link Iraq to 9-11. So what could Bush do?

Claim that Saddam was going to give WMDs to terrorists. We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

Bush lied

then so did numerous democrats.

poor rightwinger....never getting it right

you're going the way of fakey, watch your decline

 

[Yurt]

^ that

two liberals that can't produce a lie and can only sniggle in the corner because they know they have jack...

 

[Avatar4321]

Of course he didn't lie. But pointing out that he was misinformed doesn't help the lefty agenda to give him the benefit of the doubt. He has to be the epitome of evil.

 

[bravoactual]

The Bush Administration Never Lied In Order to Justify the Invasion of Iraq

The entire mantra of “Bush lied, people died” has been the refrain of critics of the Iraq War and the Bush Admin. For years. It has been repeatedly used in an attempt to destroy the Bush Admin. And delegitimize the U.S. led invasion for years.
Allowing this to go unchallenged was one of the greatest mistakes of the Bush Admin.
And on two separate levels the claim simply does not hold up.

1) Before the U.S. led invasion, President Bush questioned CIA Director George Tenet about the evidence supporting the existence of WMDs in Iraq. According to the Bob Woodward book, Tenet exclaimed that it was a “slam dunk” in favor of evidence showing WMDs.
What was President Bush supposed to do? Tenet was a Clinton appointee with no reason to lie or suck up to Bush.
The only answer I’ve ever been given is that Bush should’ve looked at the intelligence sources himself. This is completely ridiculous. A president does not go around interviewing Iraqi dissidents.
President Bush would’ve been foolish not to take the positive declarations of the CIA Director at face value.

2) Lying about WMDs in Iraq makes no logical sense. We’re supposed to believe that the Bush admin. Lied to justify an invasion…that would inevitably reveal that lie to the world.
The ONLY explanation I’ve heard regarding this from the “Bush lied” people is that “they figured the war would be so popular that no one would care”. Which is ridiculous beyond belief.

Were there WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion? Almost certainly not. But the CIA Director said there were and any president would be foolish not to act on that claim.

If your oncologist insists that you have cancer do you ask to see the lab reports yourself and interview the lab techs? Of course not! Probably you schedule surgery or chemo whichever that same doctor recommends.
Were mistakes made during the occupation of Iraq that cost thousands of American lives? Most certainly. But that is another issue that has nothing to do about the legitimacy of the invasion.

Did the Bush admin. Emphasize the stronger parts of their argument in favor of invading? Of course they did! This is what you do when making a case to a jury or to the American people. You have no obligation to argue both sides. There were plenty of opponents of the invasion to argue the other side.

Either way, there is ZERO evidence that the Bush Admin. ever deliberately and knowingly promoted false information to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Bush Lied About Weapons of Mass Destruction (W.M.D.).

Bush Lied About "Attempts to Purchase" Yellow Cake Uranium in His State of The Union Speech.

Bush Lied About Biological Weapons.

Bush Lied About Chemical Weapons.

Your the liar, and not a very good one.

 

[rightwinger]

After 9-11 we gave Bush a 9-11 Card

It allowed him to do anything he thought necessary to fight terrorism. We gave him the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Afghanistan and even looked the other way when he engaged in torture

But what Bush really wanted was Iraq. But nobody could link Iraq to 9-11. So what could Bush do?

Claim that Saddam was going to give WMDs to terrorists. We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

Bush lied

then so did numerous democrats.

poor rightwinger....never getting it right

you're going the way of fakey, watch your decline

Can there be a more pathetic admission from republicans that their invasion was a blunder than repeated attempts to blame democrats

 

[Yurt]

The Bush Administration Never Lied In Order to Justify the Invasion of Iraq

The entire mantra of “Bush lied, people died” has been the refrain of critics of the Iraq War and the Bush Admin. For years. It has been repeatedly used in an attempt to destroy the Bush Admin. And delegitimize the U.S. led invasion for years.
Allowing this to go unchallenged was one of the greatest mistakes of the Bush Admin.
And on two separate levels the claim simply does not hold up.

1) Before the U.S. led invasion, President Bush questioned CIA Director George Tenet about the evidence supporting the existence of WMDs in Iraq. According to the Bob Woodward book, Tenet exclaimed that it was a “slam dunk” in favor of evidence showing WMDs.
What was President Bush supposed to do? Tenet was a Clinton appointee with no reason to lie or suck up to Bush.
The only answer I’ve ever been given is that Bush should’ve looked at the intelligence sources himself. This is completely ridiculous. A president does not go around interviewing Iraqi dissidents.
President Bush would’ve been foolish not to take the positive declarations of the CIA Director at face value.

2) Lying about WMDs in Iraq makes no logical sense. We’re supposed to believe that the Bush admin. Lied to justify an invasion…that would inevitably reveal that lie to the world.
The ONLY explanation I’ve heard regarding this from the “Bush lied” people is that “they figured the war would be so popular that no one would care”. Which is ridiculous beyond belief.

Were there WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion? Almost certainly not. But the CIA Director said there were and any president would be foolish not to act on that claim.

If your oncologist insists that you have cancer do you ask to see the lab reports yourself and interview the lab techs? Of course not! Probably you schedule surgery or chemo whichever that same doctor recommends.
Were mistakes made during the occupation of Iraq that cost thousands of American lives? Most certainly. But that is another issue that has nothing to do about the legitimacy of the invasion.

Did the Bush admin. Emphasize the stronger parts of their argument in favor of invading? Of course they did! This is what you do when making a case to a jury or to the American people. You have no obligation to argue both sides. There were plenty of opponents of the invasion to argue the other side.

Either way, there is ZERO evidence that the Bush Admin. ever deliberately and knowingly promoted false information to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Bush Lied About Weapons of Mass Destruction (W.M.D.).

Bush Lied About "Attempts to Purchase" Yellow Cake Uranium in His State of The Union Speech.

Bush Lied About Biological Weapons.

Bush Lied About Chemical Weapons.

Your the liar, and not a very good one.

you mean he was wrong....because everyone else in the world, including his own military, believed he did

who is to say he didn't move those weapons out right before the invasion? i remember photos of convoys heading into syria....

 

[Yurt]

After 9-11 we gave Bush a 9-11 Card

It allowed him to do anything he thought necessary to fight terrorism. We gave him the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Afghanistan and even looked the other way when he engaged in torture

But what Bush really wanted was Iraq. But nobody could link Iraq to 9-11. So what could Bush do?

Claim that Saddam was going to give WMDs to terrorists. We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

Bush lied

then so did numerous democrats.

poor rightwinger....never getting it right

you're going the way of fakey, watch your decline

Can there be a more pathetic admission from republicans that their invasion was a blunder than repeated attempts to blame democrats

did i blame democrats? please cite.

and i'm not a republican you dupe.

 

[Bfgrn]

Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush and his top aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001, according to a study released Tuesday by two nonprofit journalism groups.

President Bush addresses the nation as the Iraq war
begins in March 2003.

"In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003," reads an overview of the examination, conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

According to the study, Bush and seven top officials -- including Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- made 935 false statements about Iraq during those two years.

The study was based on a searchable database compiled of primary sources, such as official government transcripts and speeches, and secondary sources -- mainly quotes from major media organizations.

Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war - CNN.com

 

[georgephillip]

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."

If you find Wesley Clark credible, Tenet never brought the truth up again because Bush had decided within days of 911 to topple Saddam's regime.

 

[Bfgrn]

Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attack on 9/11.

What we NOW know from G.W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary, the invasion of Iraq was discussed 10 days into the administration.

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq

Going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq - CBS News

 

[Dayton3]

Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush and his top aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001, according to a study released Tuesday by two nonprofit journalism groups.

President Bush addresses the nation as the Iraq war
begins in March 2003.

"In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003," reads an overview of the examination, conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

According to the study, Bush and seven top officials -- including Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- made 935 false statements about Iraq during those two years.

The study was based on a searchable database compiled of primary sources, such as official government transcripts and speeches, and secondary sources -- mainly quotes from major media organizations.

Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war - CNN.com

Assuming all that is true, (and I do not concede that) what of it?

Do you have evidence that anyone in the Bush admin. KNOWINGLY passed on information they KNEW was false?

If they didn't know it was false they did not lie.

 

[Dayton3]

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."

If you find Wesley Clark credible, Tenet never brought the truth up again because Bush had decided within days of 911 to topple Saddam's regime.

I do not find Wesley Clark credible despite the fact that he is from my own state.

He was a political general with a bunch of truly bizarre and whacky ideas about governing.

Remember as head of NATO he actually ordered British troops to ATTACK Russian troops who had occupied the Pristina airport without authorization.

Not someone with a lot of credibility on such matters.

 

[Iceweasel]

Is Bush already getting the Reagan legacy massage treatment? Might take a few more decades to make that world-wide disaster seem like a liberal plot.

You sound pissed off that liberals assholes didn't get to rewrite Reagan's legacy in the history books. Tough shit. Like Reagan, Bush was vilified at the time and history will no doubt see him in a better light when people get tired of the left wing spewings and turn a deaf ear. The recent news is a big step ...

Sunni Extremists in Iraq Occupy Saddam Hussein's Chemical Weapons Facility - WSJ
Washington—Sunni extremists in Iraq have occupied what was once Saddam Hussein's premier chemical-weapons production facility, a complex that still contains a stockpile of old weapons, State Department and other U.S. government officials said.

U.S. officials don't believe the Sunni militants will be able to create a functional chemical weapon from the material. The weapons stockpiled at the Al Muthanna complex are old, contaminated and hard to move, officials said.

 

[healthmyths]

Bush probably didn't lie, he ignorantly didn't look into the situation good enough and only listened to a select few inner circle advisers who were all way too gung-ho about invading. Most likely he believed everything he said...even believing about there being ties between Alqaeda and Saddam.

The fact that Bush is a dumbass doesn't make the situation any better for him though, and certainly not any better for the neoconservatives.

Naw... HE LISTENED TO THESE Democrats!!!
the Liberation of Iraq by signing the 1998 Liberation of Iraq,
or the Congress passes Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)
"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq "
"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.

And when Idiots say BUSH had no legal grounds to Liberate Iraq...
AGAIN what did Harry Reid say???
"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada) Addressing the US Senate October 9, 2002 Congressional Record, p. S10145

Freedom Agenda - Quotes and Facts on Iraq

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."

Robert C. Byrd
Former Ku Klux Klan recruiter, currently a US Senator (Democrat, West Virginia)
Addressing the US Senate
October 3, 2002




"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies September 27, 2002

"It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world's cause."
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts) Statement on commencement of military strikes against Iraq March 20, 2003


BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent: And with us now is the Democratic presidential candidate Dick Gephardt.
Congressman, you supported taking military action in Iraq. Do you think now it was the right thing to do?

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, D-MO, Democratic Presidential Candidate: I do. I base my determination on what I heard from the CIA. I went out there a couple of times and talked to everybody, including George Tenet. I talked to people in the Clinton administration.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you, do you feel, Congressman, that you were misled?

GEPHARDT: I don't. I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction.
What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis.
It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening. And it was on that basis that I voted to do this.
Congressman Richard Gephardt (Democrat, Montana) Interviewed on CBS News "Face the Nation" November 2, 2003

The New York Times Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq February 13, 2002
"Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table."
The New York Times Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq February 13, 2002


COME ON... ALL YOU "BUSH LIED People DIED" screamers!
Tell me BEFORE BUSH who was pushing for WAR with Iraq?
WHO told us Saddam had WMDs?
DEMOCRATS like these:

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff February 17, 1998

There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that."

Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential CampaignIn a Los Angeles Times editorial: "A 'Big Cat' With Nothing to Lose" February 6, 2003; Page B17

By the way this is the SAME Joe Wilson Democrat that gave Stingers to Bin Laden!
Charlie Wilson's War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.

Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president "would have been derelict in his duties if he didn't blow up the facility."
Freedom Agenda - Quotes and Facts on Iraq
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.

If Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we're clearly going to have to do something about it."
Howard Dean, Democratic Presidential Candidate During an interview on "Face The Nation"

Wesley Clark, 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, discusses Saddam's WMD:

WESLEY CLARK: He does have weapons of mass destruction.

MILES O'BRIEN: And you could say that categorically?

WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.

MILES O'BRIEN: All right, well, where are, where is, they've been there a long time and thus far we've got 12 empty casings. Where are all these weapons?

WESLEY CLARK: There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this.

Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate
During an interview on CNN
January 18, 2003




"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145


How about THIS GUY???

And so, in September 2004, in the heat of his campaign for the U.S. Senate, Obama said (according to an AP report) that even though Bush had “bungled his handling of the war,” simply pulling out of Iraq “would make things worse.” Therefore, he himself would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the President and military leaders believe will stabilize the country and eventually allow America to withdraw.

“If that strategy made sense and would lead ultimately to the pullout of U.S. troops but in the short term required additional troop strength to protect those who are already on the ground, then that’s something I would support,” said Obama.

Presumably what Obama was referring to here was the strategy of training indigenous Iraqi forces to “stand up” so that we could “stand down.” This was the same view of the military situation held by other critics of the Bush administration—and by the administration itself, which was in the process of trying to implement just that strategy.
But as conditions in Iraq worsened over the course of 2006 and polls registered lower and lower levels of support for the President and the war—and as he himself was nearing a decision to run for the presidency—Obama’s position shifted again, markedly so.
« Obama?s War Commentary Magazine

Was Obama a "flip flopper"???

HOW many times have we heard "Bush lied People DIED"!!!

When will you Bush BASHERs ever get it through your thick heads... BUSH wasn't then THE ONLY ONE lying then!

I mean EVEN SADDAM LIED .. why else would he let 500,000 children die of starvation RATHER then completely certify
he had NO WMDs?

And because he wouldn't THESE DEMOCRATS LIKE Bush believed Saddam and WMDs.

Once 9/11 occurred it became really evident that Saddam who wouldn't agree he did NOT have WMDs was also paying
terrorists for suicide attacks..(In case you didn't know or selectively forgot...)

Investigators who have been following a money trail say the former Iraqi president tapped secret bank accounts in Jordan - where he collected bribes from foreign companies and individuals doing illicit business under the humanitarian program - to reward the families up to $25,000 each.
Documents prepared for a Wednesday hearing by the House International Relations Committee outline the new findings about how Saddam funneled money to the Palestinian families.
Saddam's Suicide Bomb Funds - CBS News

So if he did that why in the hell would he NOT help in attacking the USA??
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." Senator John Edwards (D-NC), October 10, 2002


"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.



Now tell me again HOW could Bush have lied in 1998 when Clinton signed the Liberation of Iraq ACT?

 

[georgephillip]

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."

If you find Wesley Clark credible, Tenet never brought the truth up again because Bush had decided within days of 911 to topple Saddam's regime.

I do not find Wesley Clark credible despite the fact that he is from my own state.

He was a political general with a bunch of truly bizarre and whacky ideas about governing.

Remember as head of NATO he actually ordered British troops to ATTACK Russian troops who had occupied the Pristina airport without authorization.

Not someone with a lot of credibility on such matters.

Clark confirms what Paul O'Neill has said about Bush's intention to topple Saddam from Day 1 of his administration, in spite of his campaign promises. Clark's and O'Neill's credibility trumps that of Dick and Dubya.

Whatever doubts you have about Clark, much of what he wrote about and spoke of in 2003 has come to pass:

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran.'"

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saddam had no WMD or ties to al-Qa'ida as Bush alleged.
Iraq, Libya, and Sudan have experienced regime change as Clark claimed.
Why would you believe Bush?

 

[Kosh]

And the far left continues to show that the history of Iraq started in 2003.

 

[Billo_Really]

And the far left continues to show that the history of Iraq started in 2003.

Regime change in Iraq started with the PNAC letters to Bill Clinton.

 

[Billo_Really]

Now tell me again HOW could Bush have lied in 1998 when Clinton signed the Liberation of Iraq ACT?

What's with the fucking data dump, asshole?

Do you know so little about this issue that you can't be a little more succinct?