The Bush Administration Was "ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN" That Saddam Hussein Had WMDs

[bigrebnc1775]

Moreover, that he was determined to use them.

We now know that was a blatant LIE.

Here's some of the gems that brought us to war with the wrong country for the wrong reasons. These are all quotes...

Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

With all that alleged certainty, you don't just NOT be able to prove it. They lied to us, and they lied repeatedly and for a singular purpose of getting the country in a frame of mind to go to war.

How do the Republicans of USMB reconcile this? What's your response?

I'm sure it has been mentioned but so did Clinton and most democrats in 1998

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Moreover, that he was determined to use them.

We now know that was a blatant LIE.

Here's some of the gems that brought us to war with the wrong country for the wrong reasons. These are all quotes...

Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

With all that alleged certainty, you don't just NOT be able to prove it. They lied to us, and they lied repeatedly and for a singular purpose of getting the country in a frame of mind to go to war.

How do the Republicans of USMB reconcile this? What's your response?

Are we still obsessing about President Bush and Iraq over 6 years later? Whatever happened to Obama's big message of FOWARD or is the fact this President is failing at reviving this bad economy you need to look at old subjects of yesterday?

 

[expatriate]

Terrorism is a tactic. Those that employ it are the enemy.

Try to keep up with the adults.

We know when the enemy is defeated, you simpleton, when they cannot and do not engage in terrorism against us anymore.

if everyone who employs terrorism is our enemy, why didn't we invade Sri Lanka and go after the Tamil Tigers, or Ireland and the IRA, or Italy and the Red Guard, or Peru and the SHining Path? Our invasion of Afghanistan was rational because AQ was our real enemy. THe invasion of Iraq was not because Saddam was not.

There are lots of enemies in the world we don't go after.

The ones who went after us, however, earned our attention.

Saddam had WMDs as far as we knew. He also had some connections to and with al qaeda. There wee lots of reasons to go after him including making the rest of the war against the shit like al qaeda in Afghanistan a bit easier.

You are not alone in concluding that the war in Iraq was a pure blunder. You might be right. But then again, you might be wrong. Either way, that discussion has nothing to do with my refutation of the claim that we are fighting a war against a "tactic." That remains a bullshit claim by the bullshit peddlers.

Saddam had no connection to AQ. The very raison d'etre of AQ was the elimination of secular arab governments, Saddam was their enemy even more than we were.... and I disagree completely that invading Iraq made the war against AQ a bit easier. It made it more difficult because it diluted our resources and distracted our attention.

 

[Trajan]

I can't help but notice the OP is lacking of quotes from all the Democrats who also said Saddam had WMDs.

Here's my source: A History Of Lies: WMD, Who Said What and When

There were no LWers quotes there.

However, I'm not opposed to them.

I selected the quotes not based on party affiliation, but on content.

Look at the certainty in their words.

I gaurantee that no matter what LWer quote you provide they won't be as certain, or as pro-going-to-war as the statements in my OP.

Go for it.

right, becasue there is no where out there that contains quotes from the democrats...simple is as simple does.

 

[blackhawk]

Wow I haven't seen a case of B.D.S. on here in almost 48 hours I think that's a new record.

 

[Oldstyle]

Moreover, that he was determined to use them.

We now know that was a blatant LIE.

Here's some of the gems that brought us to war with the wrong country for the wrong reasons. These are all quotes...

Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

With all that alleged certainty, you don't just NOT be able to prove it. They lied to us, and they lied repeatedly and for a singular purpose of getting the country in a frame of mind to go to war.

How do the Republicans of USMB reconcile this? What's your response?

Its a well known fact that Bush knew there were no WMD'S in Iraq and invaded anyways.

If Bush in fact did know that there were no WMD's in Iraq then kindly explain the obvious worry that the planners for the Iraq war showed in the leaked top secret Downing Street Memos? If those planners knew that they wouldn't be facing WMD's then why would they be concerned over the political fallout from high casualties if Saddam did in fact use WMD's on an invading force?

I know it's a progressive "mantra" that Bush lied...but when you really look at the facts it's quite obvious that isn't the case. Did the Bush Administration choose to rely too heavily on the intelligence reports that said Saddam did have WMD's? Undoubtably...but it's hard to make the case that that doing so constitutes a "lie". Many Democratic leaders read the same intelligence reports and came to the same conclusions as Bush did...including both Clintons.

 

[Billo_Really]

If Bush in fact did know that there were no WMD's in Iraq then kindly explain the obvious worry that the planners for the Iraq war showed in the leaked top secret Downing Street Memos? If those planners knew that they wouldn't be facing WMD's then why would they be concerned over the political fallout from high casualties if Saddam did in fact use WMD's on an invading force?

I know it's a progressive "mantra" that Bush lied...but when you really look at the facts it's quite obvious that isn't the case. Did the Bush Administration choose to rely too heavily on the intelligence reports that said Saddam did have WMD's? Undoubtably...but it's hard to make the case that that doing so constitutes a "lie". Many Democratic leaders read the same intelligence reports and came to the same conclusions as Bush did...including both Clintons.

How do you explain Bush dismissing intelligence reports that indicated Hussein didn't have WMD's?

On May 10, 2001, in response to Bush's request in his first inaugaral security meeting requesting evidence Hussein had WMD's to justify an invasion of Iraq, a CIA analyst, only known as "Joe", starts the "aluminum tube" fabrication.

Lone CIA analyst known only as "Joe" tells top Bush brass that aluminum tubes bought by Iraq can only be for nuclear centrifuges. [Date the public knew: 8/10/03]

But just 3 months later, the energy department informs the CIA in a memo, the "aluminum tube" theory, is bogus...

Memo to CIA from Energy Department experts eviscerates "Joe's" theory that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq are for nuclear centrifuges. Memo given to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who later claims tubes are clear evidence of Iraqi nuke program. [Date the public knew: 5/1/04]

...but the Bush Administration decides to dismiss the intel from the actual experts in uranium enrichment.

 

[Billo_Really]

And we know this because a former member of the Bush Administration who was fired from his job...became an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration and then wanted to sell some copies of the book he wrote? Just how many books do you think Paul O'Neil sells if he doesn't make a charge like that? A couple dozen to family and friends?

I take sources like Paul O'Neil with a grain of salt, Loinboy. He had a monetary incentive to say something controversial and he had an axe to grind against his former employer. That makes for a bad combination if you're looking for an unbiased opinion...but then again...you're not really looking for an unbiased opinion...you're looking for one that corresponds to your take on the world, so Paul O'Neil's book was aimed directly at folks like you.

Whether you like it or not, O'Neil was present in that meeting, which makes him a credible source.

 

[Billo_Really]

Terrorism is a tactic. Those that employ it are the enemy.

Try to keep up with the adults.

We know when the enemy is defeated, you simpleton, when they cannot and do not engage in terrorism against us anymore.

An adult, is someone who takes responsibility for their own actions.

And when those actions create the enemies you say we have to defeat, all you're doing, is showing just how much of a child you are.

 

[Billo_Really]

Here's the FACTS. He didn't need any WMD's to be in Iraq. Iraq broke the agreements of the cease fire that ended hostilities after the 1st Gulf war over and over and over again, and THAT is all the justification, legal and moral, that Bush needed to go into Iraq and clean their clocks for them, forget the fact that they fired on US Warplanes in pursuit of their UN related duties. Sadam played chicken and ended up at the end of a rope, along with hundreds of thousands of his fellow muslim scumbags.

Wrong. It wasn't Bush's call to decide unilaterally for the UNSC, if Hussein violated the terms of previous resolutions.

As far as firing on US warplanes, those planes were bombing the shit out of the country. That's not no-fly zone enforcement, that's trying to provoke a war.

 

[Billo_Really]

Even though I am a lifelong liberal democrat, and even though I was furious by the hanging chad debacle that put Dubya into office, I was absolutely 100% behind his actions in the immediate wake of 9/11. I was completely supportive of his invasion of Afghanistan to seek out and destroy the people who attacked us. I even wrote to the Department of the Navy asking to come back out of retirement and onto active duty to assist in the cause is any way they deemed appropriate. They said that I was just a tad too old, unfortunately. Bush lost me when he took his eye off the ball and began to make the focus Saddam instead of OBL. Saddam may very well have been an asshole, and a very bad man across the board, but the world is full of those types of leaders on nearly every continent, yet we have never been compelled to invade, conquer and occupy the nations those leaders rule, and we shouldn't have done so in Iraq, especially when our real enemies were still on the loose. In the wake of 9/11, as bad a man as Saddam was, he still was capable of doing three very important things better than we could do, and if we had let him continue doing them and concentrated on crushing AQ, the world would be better off today than we are now. 1.) Saddam kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another in Iraq. 2.)Saddam kept Islamic extremist organizations who targeted the US from using Iraq as a base of operations. 3.) And of equal importance, he was able to act as an effective foil against Iran's aspirations of regional hegemony. Invading Iraq was a mistake that erased the support the entire world had for us after September 11th. For his mis-leadership in that endeavor, Bush will always be at the top of my "worst presidents ever" list.

We were not attacked by Afghanistan on 9/11.

 

[Billo_Really]

if everyone who employs terrorism is our enemy, why didn't we invade Sri Lanka and go after the Tamil Tigers, or Ireland and the IRA, or Italy and the Red Guard, or Peru and the SHining Path? Our invasion of Afghanistan was rational because AQ was our real enemy.

It might have been rational to some, but it wasn't legal to all.

We were not attacked by Afghanistan.

The Taliban offered to turn UBL over to the US if we would've shown evidence that he was guilty of 9/11 and Bush wouldn't even respond to that request. All he had to do, was show them what he knew and they would've handed over the people that attacked us on 9/11.

 

[Oldstyle]

if everyone who employs terrorism is our enemy, why didn't we invade Sri Lanka and go after the Tamil Tigers, or Ireland and the IRA, or Italy and the Red Guard, or Peru and the SHining Path? Our invasion of Afghanistan was rational because AQ was our real enemy.

It might have been rational to some, but it wasn't legal to all.

We were not attacked by Afghanistan.

The Taliban offered to turn UBL over to the US if we would've shown evidence that he was guilty of 9/11 and Bush wouldn't even respond to that request. All he had to do, was show them what he knew and they would've handed over the people that attacked us on 9/11.

You are seriously delusional, dude! The Taliban wasn't going to turn over Osama bin Laden to the US no matter what "evidence" we presented. They made an offer to have OBL tried by an Islamic court in Afghanistan which was turned down by the US and they made an offer to have him tried by an unnamed "third country" of their choosing, which the US also turned down. It should be noted that those offers only came after the US began bombing Afghanistan in preparation for an invasion. As for that evidence that he was guilty of planning the attacks on 9/11? You're kidding, right? I didn't realize THAT was ever in question. Bin Laden reveled in his role as the head of the terrorist group that killed thousands of Americans and was more than happy to proclaim that he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

 

[Oldstyle]

It amazes me the lengths that some of you progressives will go to in order to make George W. Bush the villian in this. Osama bin Laden is the bad guy here...not W. Bush simply responded to a cowardly attack on innocent civilians by going after the people responsible. He did so because the Taliban government in Afghanistan was providing sanctuary for thos people.

 

[Billo_Really]

You are seriously delusional, dude!

You call me "delusional", then go on to confirm the point I was making with the Taliban "offer" (that there was one).

The Taliban wasn't going to turn over Osama bin Laden to the US no matter what "evidence" we presented.

How the **** would you know?

They made an offer to have OBL tried by an Islamic court in Afghanistan which was turned down by the US and they made an offer to have him tried by an unnamed "third country" of their choosing, which the US also turned down. It should be noted that those offers only came after the US began bombing Afghanistan in preparation for an invasion.

They offered to try him in an Islamic court, before the war started and offered to turn him over to a third party, after the war started.

Why should we care where he was tried, as long as he was brought to justice?

As for that evidence that he was guilty of planning the attacks on 9/11? You're kidding, right? I didn't realize THAT was ever in question. Bin Laden reveled in his role as the head of the terrorist group that killed thousands of Americans and was more than happy to proclaim that he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Unless you speak arabic, the only evidence this country was presented, was what a translator was telling us what he was saying.

I personally believe he did do it and was guilty of 9/11.

The point is, you can only attack a country that has attacked you first and we were not attacked by the country of Afghanistan. It is not legal to attack a country because they harbor terrorists. If that was the case, then it would be legal for Cuba to attack the US because we are harboring Louis Posada, a terrorist who put a bomb on a plane that killed 73 Cuban's.

 

[Billo_Really]

It amazes me the lengths that some of you progressives will go to in order to make George W. Bush the villian in this. Osama bin Laden is the bad guy here...not W. Bush simply responded to a cowardly attack on innocent civilians by going after the people responsible. He did so because the Taliban government in Afghanistan was providing sanctuary for thos people.

He is a villian. A war of choice, is a war of aggression. And a war of aggression, is a crime against humanity.

It is also the highest crime a nation could commit.

 

[Oldstyle]

You are seriously delusional, dude!

You call me "delusional", then go on to confirm the point I was making with the Taliban "offer" (that there was one).

The Taliban wasn't going to turn over Osama bin Laden to the US no matter what "evidence" we presented.

How the **** would you know?

They made an offer to have OBL tried by an Islamic court in Afghanistan which was turned down by the US and they made an offer to have him tried by an unnamed "third country" of their choosing, which the US also turned down. It should be noted that those offers only came after the US began bombing Afghanistan in preparation for an invasion.

They offered to try him in an Islamic court, before the war started and offered to turn him over to a third party, after the war started.

Why should we care where he was tried, as long as he was brought to justice?

As for that evidence that he was guilty of planning the attacks on 9/11? You're kidding, right? I didn't realize THAT was ever in question. Bin Laden reveled in his role as the head of the terrorist group that killed thousands of Americans and was more than happy to proclaim that he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Unless you speak arabic, the only evidence this country was presented, was what a translator was telling us what he was saying.

I personally believe he did do it and was guilty of 9/11.

The point is, you can only attack a country that has attacked you first and we were not attacked by the country of Afghanistan. It is not legal to attack a country because they harbor terrorists. If that was the case, then it would be legal for Cuba to attack the US because we are harboring Louis Posada, a terrorist who put a bomb on a plane that killed 73 Cuban's.

Why should we care where the man responsible for killing thousands of Americans is tried? Are you always this naive? You actually think that a trial conducted by Islamic fundamentalists who hate the US, would have resulted in a guilty verdict against Osama bin Laden? We should have cared where he was tried because if the trial happened in Afghanistan then he would never have been "brought to justice".

Under international law it is legal to attack another nation to prevent an imminent attack on your own country. Since Afghanistan was harboring the entity that had repeatedly attacked the US then a case can be made that the attack by coalition forces to oust the Taliban was made to prevent further attacks on their countries.

 

[Oldstyle]

It amazes me the lengths that some of you progressives will go to in order to make George W. Bush the villian in this. Osama bin Laden is the bad guy here...not W. Bush simply responded to a cowardly attack on innocent civilians by going after the people responsible. He did so because the Taliban government in Afghanistan was providing sanctuary for thos people.

He is a villian. A war of choice, is a war of aggression. And a war of aggression, is a crime against humanity.

It is also the highest crime a nation could commit.

All wars are a choice. All wars are not wars of aggression. We didn't attack anyone living in Afghanistan. We actually helped them to repel an invader. How did they repay that? By harboring Osama bin Laden and Al Queda. THAT is a crime against humanity. Letting a group that slaughters thousands of innocent civilians use your country as a base to train it's terrorists is a crime against humanity.

 

[Billo_Really]

All wars are a choice.

No they're not!

If someone attacks you, you have "no choice" but to defend yourself, like when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor.

Choosing to attack a country that did not attack you first, is a war of aggression, like when Hitler invaded Poland.

All wars are not wars of aggression. We didn't attack anyone living in Afghanistan.

Tell that to the wedding party we hit with a missle, killing 37 people (including the bride).

Tell that to the 8 Afghan women out collecting firewood (so they could cook dinner) that we blew to bits with a drone strike.

We actually helped them to repel an invader.

What invader?

How did they repay that? By harboring Osama bin Laden and Al Queda. THAT is a crime against humanity.

When the Taliban started getting reports about what UBL was doing, they warned him not to be planning any attacks on the US.

Letting a group that slaughters thousands of innocent civilians use your country as a base to train it's terrorists is a crime against humanity.

That's a pretty hypocritical thing to say in light of the fact that we have supported many groups in many country's that have slaughtered innocent civilians.

Just ask Chileans about our support for Pinochet.
Just ask the Sandinista's about our support for terrorists in that country.
Just ask the Iranian's about our support for the Shah of Iran.
Hell, you can even ask Iraqis about our support for Maliki's death squads.

 

[Billo_Really]

Why should we care where the man responsible for killing thousands of Americans is tried? Are you always this naive? You actually think that a trial conducted by Islamic fundamentalists who hate the US, would have resulted in a guilty verdict against Osama bin Laden? We should have cared where he was tried because if the trial happened in Afghanistan then he would never have been "brought to justice".

Just because your an Islamic nation, doesn't mean you hate the US.

Under international law it is legal to attack another nation to prevent an imminent attack on your own country.

There were no Afghan warships off our coast.

There were no threats of attack from the Afhgan government.

Therefore, the question of "imminence", doesn't apply.

Since Afghanistan was harboring the entity that had repeatedly attacked the US then a case can be made that the attack by coalition forces to oust the Taliban was made to prevent further attacks on their countries.

Harboring a terrorist, is not a legal reason to attack a country.

Otherwise, it would be legal for Cuba to attack the US over Posada.