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.
Regime change in Iraq started with the PNAC letters to Bill Clinton.And the far left continues to show that the history of Iraq started in 2003.
If you say you "know" something, when you don't, that's a lie.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.
If you say you "know" something, when you don't, that's a lie.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.
The BA said they "knew" Hussein had WMD's, when he didn't.
So they didn't know.
Your full of shit!As usual incorrect!
The UN expected regime change in Iraq in 1998 when he defied the UN yet again and Clinton was to busy chasing skirts to do his job. Then again Clinton had to use Iraq to get to take the focus off of him chasing skirts and working with Republicans.
Bush allowed Colin Powell to stall while trying to convince more countries into invading with us via the UN. I thought this was a mistake. We should've gone in months earlier than we did. We gave Saddam too much time to hide his WMD's in Syria.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/washington/27intel.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat, Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, was there ever a significant discussion about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.
Mr. Tenet admits that he made his famous slam dunk remark about the evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But he argues that the quote was taken out of context and that it had little impact on President Bushs decision to go to war. He also makes clear his bitter view that the administration made him a scapegoat for the Iraq war.
Bush gave Saddam plenty of time to prove he didn't have wmd's, he chose to bluff and paid the ultimate price. I'm glad he is gone, but not glad obama screwed it up.
UN weapon inspector Hans Blix told Bush he did not think Saddam had the weapons Bush said he did. He requested more time to prove it. Bush invaded before the UN inspectors could remove his reason for invading
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
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.
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 Ive ever been given is that Bush shouldve looked at the intelligence sources himself. This is completely ridiculous. A president does not go around interviewing Iraqi dissidents.
President Bush wouldve 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. Were supposed to believe that the Bush admin. Lied to justify an invasion that would inevitably reveal that lie to the world.
The ONLY explanation Ive 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.
ANDREW NATSIOS
Well, I think it is, but they can waive it. And I can waive it. And I did waive it in January for subcontracts. But the problem is, when we started this process, it was January. The President had not decide to go to war. If we had gone internationally to a big bidding process, it would've sent a huge message the decision had already been made when what we were doing was prudent contingency planning for what might happen. There was some likelihood it would happen, but a decision hadn't been made. So, we did do competition. It was limited competition. It's a procedure, let me just say, it's a procedure we used in Bosnia in the Clinton years, that's where we got this from. It was done to speed up the reconstruction of Bosnia. We also did it in Afghanistan and now we're doing for a third time in ten years in Iraq. And no one raised complaints about this before, I might add.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) Well, it's a, I think you'll agree, this is a much bigger project than any that's been talked about. Indeed, I understand that more money is expected to be spent on this than was spent on the entire Marshall Plan for the rebuilding of Europe after World War II.
ANDREW NATSIOS
No, no. This doesn't even compare remotely with the size of the Marshall Plan.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) The Marshall Plan was $97 billion.
ANDREW NATSIOS
This is 1.7 billion.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) All right, this is the first. I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you're not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is gonna be done for $1.7 billion?
ANDREW NATSIOS
Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, I do, this is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi oil revenues, eventually in several years, when it's up and running and there's a new government that's been democratically elected, will finish the job with their own revenues. They're going to get in $20 billion a year in oil revenues. But the American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) Let me go back to a point you were making a moment ago, namely, you can only really begin on this process in January. The Army began planning for this war, in some detail, last June, ten months ago. Why could you not on a contingency basis have said, we don't know if we're going war, there's a possibility we'll be going war, everyone's been thinking we'll be going to war for many months now, put out the bids and get some competitive bidding going on a global basis or even get some major competitive bidding here in the United States. If it happens, it happens and we're ready. If it doesn't, we don't have to go ahead with these projects.
ANDREW NATSIOS
Sure. We were plan on this last September and we spent the fall working with other domestic Federal agencies and the State Department and the Treasury Department and the National Security Council and MOB on an interagency agreement as to who would do that what. By October/November, that had been set. We began working on the scopes of work which actually take a long time to write because you're reconstructing large parts of a whole country, and by January they were ready to be bid. And we got approval in January to go out and do this truncated shorter process that takes about six weeks or two months. So, the timing actually goes back to September, but you don't just go out to bid, you have to have a document to bid.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) Gotcha. Why it was not more competitive and why it ends up being cost plus, let's just take a quick break and when we come back, perhaps you'll address those two questions. Back in a moment. commercial break
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) And we're back once again with ANDREW NATSIOS, administrator for the Agency for International Development. I want to be sure that I understood you correctly. You're saying the, the top cost for the US taxpayer will be $1.7 billion. No more than that?
ANDREW NATSIOS
For the reconstruction. And then there's 700 million in the supplemental budget for humanitarian relief, which we don't competitively bid 'cause it's charities that get that money.
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) I understand. But as far as reconstruction goes, the American taxpayer will not be hit for more than $1.7 billion no matter how long the process takes?
ANDREW NATSIOS
That is our plan and that is our intention. And these figures, outlandish figures I've seen, I have to say, there's a little bit of hoopla involved in this.
In response to "Do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"] "Well, I dont think its likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. Ive talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House....The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."
I'm about as "conservative" as a man can be but let's face it: Bush lied! Firstly, the "weapons of mass destruction" BS was an excuse to grab some oil fields. Secondly, Hussein was about to dump the US dollar which is a big-time no-no. Thirdly, Bush answered to the Israeli lobby like most American politicians do. The fact of the matter is that there were bigger threats to America's national security than Iraq but we chose to ignore the Communist Chinese threat and decided to pummel Iraq instead. Was I a fan of Iraq? Nope! But we had bigger fish to fry like sealing and defending our southern border.
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.
Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
"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."
--President Bill 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."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 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
"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
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. 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..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Yeah these f'kers lied too...
Let's just hang all of them...
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 listened to advisors, as did the Dems at the time, and they were all on the same page. Obama claims to not know anything until he sees it on the news, yet they let him get away with that.
The Dems seem to be asking us to believe that they were so cooperative with Bush that they never questioned anything he told them. That is incredible!! They all had the same information, discussed it and made the decision. No Dems were pressured. If anyone thinks that the Dems in Washington ever blindly went along with any Repubs, then you're dreaming. Never has and never will happen.
Considering that congress was in agreement, they ALL take equal responsibility for what happened. If the information turned out to be false, then it would be on the Clinton appointee.
Obama has screwed many things up. You cannot blame any of his policies on the Republicans since they did question things and refused to get on board with Obamacare and other idiotic things.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/washington/27intel.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat, Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, was there ever a significant discussion about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.
Mr. Tenet admits that he made his famous slam dunk remark about the evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But he argues that the quote was taken out of context and that it had little impact on President Bushs decision to go to war. He also makes clear his bitter view that the administration made him a scapegoat for the Iraq war.
Bush gave Saddam plenty of time to prove he didn't have wmd's, he chose to bluff and paid the ultimate price. I'm glad he is gone, but not glad obama screwed it up.
I'm about as "conservative" as a man can be but let's face it: Bush lied! Firstly, the "weapons of mass destruction" BS was an excuse to grab some oil fields. Secondly, Hussein was about to dump the US dollar which is a big-time no-no. Thirdly, Bush answered to the Israeli lobby like most American politicians do. The fact of the matter is that there were bigger threats to America's national security than Iraq but we chose to ignore the Communist Chinese threat and decided to pummel Iraq instead. Was I a fan of Iraq? Nope! But we had bigger fish to fry like sealing and defending our southern border.
If that's true why didn't we grab the oil fields? Your facts are full of fiction.
'US to control Iraq oil always' ? RT NewsDespite the USs declared withdrawal of its military personnel and contractors out of Iraq, Washington has prepared to control the country's rich oil reserves in any case, shared Ranjit Singh Kalha, former India's ambassador to Iraq in the 1990s.
*Having spent $3 trillion in Iraq, a country with harsh weather conditions (+50 C most of the time) and absolutely nothing valuable but oil reserves, the Americans simply cannot give up the plentiful and very high quality oil they went there for.
Back at ya!!
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.
