Proof that Bush lied!

[rikzilla]

Well I threatened to do this for all the blockheads......

Def : "Lie" a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction"
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
George W. Bush
Speech to U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002



"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
George W. Bush
State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
Colin Powell
Remarks to U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
George W. Bush
Radio Address, Feb. 8, 2003

"So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad?... I think our judgment has to be clearly not."
Colin Powell
Remarks to U.N. Security Council, March 7, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing, March 21, 2003


"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction."
Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
The Washington Post, Page A27, March 23, 2003

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview, March 30, 2003


"I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found."
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing, Apr. 10, 2003

"We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them."
George W. Bush
NBC Interview, Apr. 24, 2003

"There are people who in large measure have information that we need... so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country."
Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing, Apr. 25, 2003

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."
George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters, May 3, 2003

"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."
Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters, May 4, 2003

"We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country."
Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview, May 4, 2003

"I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program."
George W. Bush

Remarks to Reporters, May 6, 2003

"U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction."
Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview, May 12, 2003


"They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer."
Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz"
Vanity Fair interview, May 28, 2003

Many thanks for Demon's data mining.

My own post:
If it seems that there have been quite a few rationales for going to war in Iraq, that’s because there have been quite a few - 27, in fact, all floated between Sept. 12, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002, according to a new study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
<http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html>

I have edited the list to include only Bush and his official mouthpieces' who express his opinion as part of their job description. I am compiling a list of inconstancy's where stated representations are diametrically opposed to the facts GII had at his disposal. This man even when subject to concrete proof of his judgments and stated position are incorrect , refuses to admit that he was incorrect and change his outlook. That is annoying in anyone, but it is alarming in the character ( or lack of ) of the most powerful man in the world. Some people here live in his fantasy playground tho, I'm afraid.

Your post shows that it is you who live in a fantasy land. First, you have cherry-picked quotes that support only your position. What do you make of these quotes?

"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 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 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 Sens. 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 the 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 seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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 alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (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. "[W]ithout 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 has 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.

...perhaps all these Dems also were part of Bush's conspiracy of deception??

-z

 

[TragicMonkey]

Your post shows that it is you who live in a fantasy land. First, you have cherry-picked quotes that support only your position. What do you make of these quotes?


...perhaps all these Dems also were part of Bush's conspiracy of deception??

-z

And did Clinton invade Iraq and conquer it, using the above statements as justification for doing so? That would seem to be the point that makes some people angry about it.

I don't think anyone's surprised that politicians lie. It's what they do with their lies that counts.

 

[DavidJames]

Thanks Rik for showing us how conservatives think, specifically how apparently It's not wrong or a lie if others agree with you. When will your kind grow up and stop blaming others for your problems. Other people making mistakes does not give you immunity if you make the same mistake. You guys need to grow a spine and accept responsibility for your actions and stop the childish excuses - but mommy, Billy said it first.

Forget trying to play the hypocrisy card, save that for your conservative friends. If Clinton, Albright, Berger or whoever had made the same stupid mistakes I would be reacting the same as I am to Bush.

 

[fishbob]

Rik:

I made a thread before the invasion of Iraq was launched. My own take on the situation was that Saddam's Iraq was in "material breach" of UNSCR 687.

Before we invaded, Iraq was a UN problem. Now that we have invaded, Iraq is still a UN problem and also a US responsibility.

And Rik - your quotes from after Jan 2001 were made by people that relied on info provided by the current administration - which was cherry-picked. The quotes prior to 2001 did not claim that Saddam actually had WMDs, although the one by Sandy Berger certainly implied it. Yes - there was intel that Saddam was trying to develop weapons. Also there was intel that he was not that far along - and this intel was ignored by the current admin. And the stuff Berger was talking about is the stuff Saddam dropped on the Kurds, which he acquired from the US.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Pardon me for interjecting, but seeing this post from the veritable wellspring of semantic bs caused me to do a spit-take all over my desk.

Those who are unfamiliar with varwoche should know that by "semantic bs", he means insisting that "I believe" and "it is somewhat likely" are different. Apparently in varwoche world, those two phrases mean exactly the same thing, and anyone who notices any difference between them is a "hyper-literalist".

Pepto: Nobody is going to find some kind of smoking gun type of proof. It will not happen. There will always be a relatively innocent sounding 'alternate explanation' to feed the true believers.

And yet when THE EXACT SAME LOGIC is used in regards to WMD, suddenly it's weaseling. It's quite possible that there are WMDs in Iraq, and Saddam was just intelligent enough to hide them so well that we can't find them, just as it's quite possible that Bush lied, but hid it so well that we can't find proof.

Art Vandalay - The original question implied that without hard evidence that Bush actually intentionally perverted the truth, that Bush must be somehow off the hook for the 'errors' in his and his goombah's statements. I did not move any goalposts, I pointed out what an honest, non-apologetic question would entail. Get over it guys - your fearless leader is a sleazebag who is not dumb enough to get undeniably caught at being a sleazebag.

I think you're reading stuff into the OP, and you are implying that questioning any charge made against Bush is "apologetic", and anyone who disagrees with you is a Bush fan.

I think that pepto's demand for proof that Bush deliberately deceived is semantic BS. Short of Bush himself saying that he lied, I don't think that anything will convince him.

How can it possibly be semantic BS? At best (or at worst), you EXPECT him to post semantic BS in response to “proof” that Bush lied. You’re attacking him on the basis of what you EXPECT him to say, not on what he’s said (or least, not on what he’s said in this thread). Maybe the word you’re looking for is “disingenuous”.

But, if pepto wants to play these word parsing semantic BS games, do it to the hilt.

WHAT word parsing semantic BS games?

But if pepto wants to ignore the real issue - that Bush led a march to war and sold a bill of goods to the American public on the reasons why - what else can I do? I play his game. And he has ignored my posts. I wonder why?

So if that’s “the real issue”, why are people insisting on claiming that he lied? And why is pepto not allowed to challenge that assertion?
“Bush lied!”
“No, Bush didn’t lie.”
“Whether Bush lied is not the issue! Quite trying to change the subject!”

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
And did Clinton invade Iraq and conquer it, using the above statements as justification for doing so?

”Bush lied!”
“If Bush lied, Clinton must have too!”
“Whether Bush or Clinton lied really isn’t important!”

Originally posted by DavidJames
The difference being that while I suspect there were some, I know of no one who agreed with Clinton's attempt to minimize or hide his mistake with ML.

Really? I’ve seen quite a few people say that it was no one’s business but his and Hillary’s, he had no obligation to testify. and the fact that his privacy was violated justified his lies.

You guys need to grow a spine and accept responsibility for your actions and stop the childish excuses - but mommy, Billy said it first.

You need to stop making up these strawmen instead of paying attention to what people are saying. The point is that if these other people believed it too, that suggests that it is possible that Bush believed it.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Wrong. Any dictionary will give you a definition that includes deliberate deceit. All of your examples can be attributed to incorrect intelligence reports or incorrect assessment of those reports.

What I'm looking for is proof that Bush deliberatly lied in order to decieve the American public into supporting the war on Iraq. A huge list of unrelated items is not necessary, just one objectively verifiable instance will do.

The fact that Bush lied is fairly supported by the simple existence of times where he spoke and knew the information was suspect or false. Proving his motivation is impossible unless Your a mind reader. The fact that he cant admit error or responsibility in Re many other foul ups, leads me to believe that he could never admit deception.

RZ: "Your post shows that it is you who live in a fantasy land. First, you have cherry-picked quotes that support only your position. What do you make of these quotes?"{/b]

How is quoting spoken words in the public record living in a fantasy land? Cherry pick? That's a sophomoric assertion. I included quotes that support my position . The process of political discourse does not include any obligation on my part to dis-prove my own assertions, that's Your job.

What do you make of these quotes?


Not much .........
Ahhh now really feel at home . No discussion of Bush would be complete without the ole 7 year old girl whine that "Clinton did it first".

As far a a disparate list , you have made one .Remove all the "Dem's" who are not official mouth pieces for the white house , reread the statements. Now show me where (1 Clinton acted as Bush did. In case you forgot Bush was warned that the evidence was wrong on no other then three occasions, and was warned directly not to include that material in his State of the Union Address and (2 where Clinton using known faulty "intelligence" dragged us into a war against the better judgment of his own hi ranking military advisor's.

Now WHO'S living in a fantasy land?

 

[peptoabysmal]

Pepto: Nobody is going to find some kind of smoking gun type of proof. It will not happen. There will always be a relatively innocent sounding 'alternate explanation' to feed the true believers.

I'm not sure of that. I'm talking a real impeachable offense here. I voted for the guy, but if I knew for a fact that he knew for a fact and lied to us, all bets are off. What is the likelihood that he (Bush) knew something for a fact something that Saddam's own generals were unsure of?

The chief Republicans in DC may appear goofy, but they managed to stay elected - which shows they are not so stupid as to leave clear-cut evidence laying around for CBS or somebody to find. However, there is enough evidence to show that the Bush admin played the public like a bass on a Hula Popper with various variances from the truth.

I'm not interested in "they". The statement "Bush lied" gets thrown around with no challenge. I'm challenging it. Did Bush lie, yes or no?

Art Vandalay - The original question implied that without hard evidence that Bush actually intentionally perverted the truth, that Bush must be somehow off the hook for the 'errors' in his and his goombah's statements. I did not move any goalposts, I pointed out what an honest, non-apologetic question would entail. Get over it guys - your fearless leader is a sleazebag who is not dumb enough to get undeniably caught at being a sleazebag.

Call them errors, whatever you want. I don't expect any Bush-haters to suddenly stop criticizing Bush, nor would I want them to.
This isn't about vindicating Bush, it is about setting the record straight regarding the "Bush lied" mantra.

 

[PixyMisa]

Again, they have not lost wars whose cease fire agreements stiupulate that they not support terrorism or terrorists.

But the N. Korea government had not lost a war then thumbed their collective noses at 16 UNSCR's.

Hmm.

The Korean War was never officially ended; no peace treaty was ever signed, but rather a ceasefire has been in effect since, erm, the end of the war. (I'm not sure exactly when the ceasefire took effect, because the talks lasted for two years.) I don't know exactly what the terms of the ceasefire agreement are, either.

Anyway, the real problem with invading North Korea is that they have many thousands of artillery pieces pointed at Seoul and could inflict massive damage and casualties there.

Which is unfortunate for the people of North Korea, because it is probably the most repressive regime on the planet. I mean, people there are willing to risk death to escape to China.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Thanks Rik for showing us how conservatives think, specifically how apparently It's not wrong or a lie if others agree with you. When will your kind grow up and stop blaming others for your problems. Other people making mistakes does not give you immunity if you make the same mistake. You guys need to grow a spine and accept responsibility for your actions and stop the childish excuses - but mommy, Billy said it first.

Forget trying to play the hypocrisy card, save that for your conservative friends. If Clinton, Albright, Berger or whoever had made the same stupid mistakes I would be reacting the same as I am to Bush.

The air is mighty thin up there in Colorado, isn't it?

 

[Thanz]

How can it possibly be semantic BS? At best (or at worst), you EXPECT him to post semantic BS in response to “proof” that Bush lied. You’re attacking him on the basis of what you EXPECT him to say, not on what he’s said (or least, not on what he’s said in this thread). Maybe the word you’re looking for is “disingenuous”.

Call it what you want. I see pepto harping on the definition of "lie" and demanding a level of proof that some yahoos on an internet message board would in no way be privy to. And he seems to think that unless WE can PROVE Bush lied, he was telling the truth. Which is, of course, BS. As were the stated reasons for going to war.

WHAT word parsing semantic BS games?

See above.

So if that’s “the real issue”, why are people insisting on claiming that he lied? And why is pepto not allowed to challenge that assertion?
“Bush lied!”
“No, Bush didn’t lie.”
“Whether Bush lied is not the issue! Quite trying to change the subject!”

He can challenge it all he likes. But what he is really doing is demanding a level of proof that is ridiculous for an internet message board, and refusing to use logic. Bush and Co. made a series of statements about WMD's that were doubted by other countries, the UN and their chief inspector Blix at the time. They either knew they were telling a pack of lies, were willfully blind to the truth, or were inescapably stupid. The highest you can put it is wilfully blind. They turned normal reasoning on its head. They decided to go to war, then went about trying to assemble a bunch of reasons for it. They didn't get intel of WMD's and then decide we have to do something about it.

And I note that despite his demands for "proof", he has still ignored my posts where I offer him such proof. Interesting, that.

 

[varwoche]

Those who are unfamiliar with varwoche should know that by "semantic bs", he means insisting that "I believe" and "it is somewhat likely" are different.

Off topic clarification: this is the thread I had in mind, actually. And now back to your regularly scheduled program...

 

[rikzilla]

Thanks Rik for showing us how conservatives think, specifically how apparently It's not wrong or a lie if others agree with you. When will your kind grow up and stop blaming others for your problems. Other people making mistakes does not give you immunity if you make the same mistake. You guys need to grow a spine and accept responsibility for your actions and stop the childish excuses - but mommy, Billy said it first.

Forget trying to play the hypocrisy card, save that for your conservative friends. If Clinton, Albright, Berger or whoever had made the same stupid mistakes I would be reacting the same as I am to Bush. [/B]

David,

I made 10 points supporting the fact that Saddam's Iraq was in breach of UNSCR 687 which in fact was the Gulf War I cease fire instrument. I created that thread before the invasion was launched. The dems on this board have literally had years to refute those bits of evidence and so far have still not done it. Those points show that Saddam had a history of supporting terrorism, teaching terrorism, and hiding wanted terrorists. Those points show that Saddam had a history of evading or intimidating UNSCOM inspectors.

The idea that Saddam had WMD was a bi-partisan notion supported by US and UK intelligence services going back many years. Bush did not make up a story about WMD to lead us into a morally wrong war. He did not demonstrably lie about anything. The charge of lying is a hollow partisan smear made by people who have an irrational hatred for Mr. Bush.

We were right to be concerned about Saddam's Iraq knowing their history of deciet (and this was before oil for fraud came to light), and any US president dem or rep would have had to face some very hard facts post 9/11. Would Al Gore have declined to go after Saddam? Maybe, maybe not...but a post 9/11 world with Saddam playing his usual game and the oil for fraud debacle still on-going...and the repression and murder of Iraqi political prisoners (remember Scott Ritter's report of chemical agents being tested on political prisoners)...would still be in full swing. I would hope that Mr. Gore would have done something...and I suspect he would have. The protection of the American people post 9/11 would be an awesome responsibility for any American president. With the available intel on Saddam it's quite reasonable that any number of other people would come to the same conclusion as did Bush, regardless of their politics.

The reason that I posted all those earlier quotes is to show you and others that GWB did not make up the WMD allegations. The information existed long before his term began. Since Clinton's term was pre-9/11 he could certainly be forgiven for not taking more drastic measures...but post 9/11 was a whole different paradigm. (hate that word)

I see no hypocrisy inherrent in pointing out to you these facts. They are facts. The accusations that Bush lied are not.

-z

Edited to add: In your post you said Bush lied, then claimed he "made a mistake"...so which is it? There is certainly objective information showing he made a mistake, if you are claiming he told a bald faced lie as Thanz is then where is the proof of this?

 

[clk]

I made 10 points supporting the fact that Saddam's Iraq was in breach of UNSCR 687 which in fact was the Gulf War I cease fire instrument. I created that thread before the invasion was launched. The dems on this board have literally had years to refute those bits of evidence and so far have still not done it. Those points show that Saddam had a history of supporting terrorism, teaching terrorism, and hiding wanted terrorists. Those points show that Saddam had a history of evading or intimidating UNSCOM inspectors.

The idea that Saddam had WMD was a bi-partisan notion supported by US and UK intelligence services going back many years. Bush did not make up a story about WMD to lead us into a morally wrong war. He did not demonstrably lie about anything. The charge of lying is a hollow partisan smear made by people who have an irrational hatred for Mr. Bush.

We were right to be concerned about Saddam's Iraq knowing their history of deciet (and this was before oil for fraud came to light), and any US president dem or rep would have had to face some very hard facts post 9/11. Would Al Gore have declined to go after Saddam? Maybe, maybe not...but a post 9/11 world with Saddam playing his usual game and the oil for fraud debacle still on-going...and the repression and murder of Iraqi political prisoners (remember Scott Ritter's report of chemical agents being tested on political prisoners)...would still be in full swing. I would hope that Mr. Gore would have done something...and I suspect he would have. The protection of the American people post 9/11 would be an awesome responsibility for any American president. With the available intel on Saddam it's quite reasonable that any number of other people would come to the same conclusion as did Bush, regardless of their politics.

The reason that I posted all those earlier quotes is to show you and others that GWB did not make up the WMD allegations. The information existed long before his term began. Since Clinton's term was pre-9/11 he could certainly be forgiven for not taking more drastic measures...but post 9/11 was a whole different paradigm. (hate that word)

I see no hypocrisy inherrent in pointing out to you these facts. They are facts. The accusations that Bush lied are not.

-z

Edited to add: In your post you said Bush lied, then claimed he "made a mistake"...so which is it? There is certainly objective information showing he made a mistake, if you are claiming he told a bald faced lie as Thanz is then where is the proof of this?

It's funny: Bush put a microscope on Iraq, and all he could find was faulty, old, and inaccurate intelligence about WMD, as well as a few weak ties to terrorists. What if he had put the same microscope on Saudi Arabia? What do you think he would have found? For every supposed link to Al Queda you can find in Iraq, there are 100 real links to Al Queda in Saudi Arabia. I've said it before: Iraq was never a threat to the US. Here is the list of top threats to US national security (before the war):
1. Al Queda
2. Saudi Arabia
3. Iran
4. North Korea
5. Iraq (assuming they have WMD)

As I have said before, Bush knew in February that much of his intelligence about WMD was flat out wrong, and that there was a good chance that Saddam had no WMD. So what did he do? Did he do the rational thing, which is put more inspectors in Iraq and initiate a thorough search process? No.
Did he withdraw troops from around Iraq and put more pressure on Al Queda in Afghanistan? No.
Did he pressure Saudi Arabia for funding Al Queda? No. He rushed to war and invaded a country that was not even the 5th biggest threat to the US. If Saddam doesn't have WMD, it's arguable that he is not even in the top 10 list of threats to the US.
Just because Bush may have technically had a right to invade Iraq because of a UN resolution doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Why is that hard to understand? As Richard Clarke said: Bush invading Iraq after 9/11 would be like Roosevelt invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor.

Also, I find it amusing and ironic that the Repubs are now using UNSCR 687 as a crutch against the argument that we had no right to invade Iraq. What gives? I thought the UN was irrelevant??

 

[rikzilla]

It's funny: Bush put a microscope on Iraq, and all he could find was faulty, old, and inaccurate intelligence about WMD, as well as a few weak ties to terrorists. What if he had put the same microscope on Saudi Arabia? What do you think he would have found? For every supposed link to Al Queda you can find in Iraq, there are 100 real links to Al Queda in Saudi Arabia. I've said it before: Iraq was never a threat to the US. Here is the list of top threats to US national security (before the war):
1. Al Queda
2. Saudi Arabia
3. Iran
4. North Korea
5. Iraq (assuming they have WMD)

As I have said before, Bush knew in February that much of his intelligence about WMD was flat out wrong, and that there was a good chance that Saddam had no WMD. So what did he do? Did he do the rational thing, which is put more inspectors in Iraq and initiate a thorough search process? No.
Did he withdraw troops from around Iraq and put more pressure on Al Queda in Afghanistan? No.
Did he pressure Saudi Arabia for funding Al Queda? No. He rushed to war and invaded a country that was not even the 5th biggest threat to the US. If Saddam doesn't have WMD, it's arguable that he is not even in the top 10 list of threats to the US.
Just because Bush may have technically had a right to invade Iraq because of a UN resolution doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Why is that hard to understand? As Richard Clarke said: Bush invading Iraq after 9/11 would be like Roosevelt invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor.

Also, I find it amusing and ironic that the Repubs are now using UNSCR 687 as a crutch against the argument that we had no right to invade Iraq. What gives? I thought the UN was irrelevant??

It's funny,...I made alot of points that you either ignored or failed to properly address. Then you made alot of claims supported by vague references to the partisan self-serving Clarke tell all book.

Why don't you go back and look at the points I made? None of them were based on biased info from political cranks. My main source was Scott Ritter (hero of the left....since his legal troubles began that is). It was Ritter who detailed stumbling upon the Mukhabarrat's terrorism school....it was Ritter who found evidence of Saddam using weaponized chemical agents on political prisoners! Can you think of anything more heinous? More indicative of WMD research and development? Why did you ignore this? Why do you continue to?

One more thing, isn't this thread about actual evidence that Bush lied, and the dearth of such evidence?

Is the UN irrelevant? Obviously there is evidence they have become so. But when UNSCR 687 was first agreed to by Saddam's government this was not the case. The UN's inability, or unwillingness to enforce their resolutions coupled with their unaccountability and institutional corruption have caused the marginalization of that once august institution. The Repubs have only pointed that fact out. The fact that the UN cannot be trusted to do anything well or without massive corruption is not the fault of Republicans.

-z

 

[clk]

It's funny,...I made alot of points that you either ignored or failed to properly address.

Such as?

Then you made alot of claims supported by vague references to the partisan self-serving Clarke tell all book.

So anyone who criticizes Bush in print is a self-serving partisan? If Clarke is such a partisan, then why did he serve under Reagan and Bush I as Assistant Secretary of State? And why did he serve under Bush II for 2 years?

I'm curious about your opinion of John O'Neill, the leader of the SBVT. Was he a self-serving partisan?

Why don't you go back and look at the points I made? None of them were based on biased info from political cranks. My main source was Scott Ritter (hero of the left....since his legal troubles began that is). It was Ritter who detailed stumbling upon the Mukhabarrat's terrorism school....it was Ritter who found evidence of Saddam using weaponized chemical agents on political prisoners! Can you think of anything more heinous? More indicative of WMD research and development? Why did you ignore this? Why do you continue to?

Why do you ignore the fact that Saddam having WMD in 1993 doesn't make it smart for the US to invade Iraq in 2003? The ties Saddam had to terrorists or WMD in the early to mid 90s are not really relevant. Bush should not base the war on what Saddam had THEN, he should base it on what Saddam has NOW. Would you agree?

One more thing, isn't this thread about actual evidence that Bush lied, and the dearth of such evidence?

As I said before, Bush knew in late February (2003) that there was a good chance Saddam possessed no WMD. Not only that, he knew that a large amount of intelligence that he based the 'March to War' on was wrong. Yet, just a few weeks later, he states:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

He knew very well that there were serious doubts as to whether Iraq continued to possess WMD. So at best, he was being dishonest. At worst, he was lying. So which is it? Was he dishonest, or was he lying?

Is the UN irrelevant? Obviously there is evidence they have become so. But when UNSCR 687 was first agreed to by Saddam's government this was not the case. The UN's inability, or unwillingness to enforce their resolutions coupled with their unaccountability and institutional corruption have caused the marginalization of that once august institution. The Repubs have only pointed that fact out. The fact that the UN cannot be trusted to do anything well or without massive corruption is not the fault of Republicans.

So basically, if a UN document helps the case to war, then use it in your argument! Otherwise, the UN is irrelevant, right? Also, there is still debate as to whether the Iraq war was legal. Kofi Annan seems to think not.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm
But then again, he's irrelevant. Unless he says something pro-war, that is.

 

[rikzilla]

Such as?

Must I? After all, all you need to do is go back a few posts and look at the snapshot I provided...or the post before that and look at the link to the thread I already provided. Listen, I'll debate you, but only if you actually show some evidence of having actually read my posts. Otherwise this is like Randi answering e-mails from dowsers....and like him I don't feel the need.

-z

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Wrong. Any dictionary will give you a definition that includes deliberate deceit. All of your examples can be attributed to incorrect intelligence reports or incorrect assessment of those reports.

What I'm looking for is proof that Bush deliberately lied in order to decieve the American public into supporting the war on Iraq. A huge list of unrelated items is not necessary, just one objectively verifiable instance will do.

Sorry dark helmet I seem to have mislaid a few paragraphs.
1. lie, prevarication -- (a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth)
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=lie
If you want to argue with the definition argue with Princeton. Their's is the first definition of a google search.

Secondly,
The fact the he lied is proved by the utterance of intelligence he was told was faulty and untrue. In fact he ( and his cabinet officers*) went on to embellish the bad information crafting it to a greater certainty and making it more ominous That is proof enough, as far as knowing his motivations it would take a mind reader or an admission by the President. Seeing his inability to admit error and take responsibility in any other example, admission of prevarication or obfuscation in this question is more then highly unlikely.

You have also moved the goal post . Your original statement was "Prove that Bush lied". Stated two times with no mention of motivation.The Yellow cake BS. The Al-Quida BS. You can label it a hundred ways but that three letter word demonstrates it best. Lie.

* Dr.Rice on the "aluminum tubes "sept 2, in committee . She raises the specter of the mushroom cloud and went on to say that the tubes were not usable for anything but gas centrifuges. The white house was told that was not the case in fact the intelligence ( 1 year old )was that they were crude and could not be used for centrifuges but were battlefield rocket casings. Rice "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

"But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity."

 

[clk]

Must I? After all, all you need to do is go back a few posts and look at the snapshot I provided...or the post before that and look at the link to the thread I already provided. Listen, I'll debate you, but only if you actually show some evidence of having actually read my posts. Otherwise this is like Randi answering e-mails from dowsers....and like him I don't feel the need.

I have already rebutted your 'snapshot'. I'll repeat it again: With the years and years of intelligence gathered on Iraq, the best you could do was come up with a list of 10 links to terrorism. Who knows how accurate the intelligence is on some of them? Maybe it's as poor as the intelligence we had on WMD.
I will give you a list of 15 ties to terrorists for Saudi Arabia, but I don't need a microscope:
Abdulaziz Alomari
Satam M.A. Al Suqami
Wail M. Alshehri
Waleed M. Alshehri
Marwan al-Shehhi
Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad
Ahmed Alghamdi
Hamza Alghamdi
Hani Hanjour
Salem Alhazmi
Saeed Alghamdi
Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi
Ahmed Alnami
Majed Moqed
Nawaf Al-Hazmi
Oh yeah, and some guy named Osama Bin Laden

Again: Iraq was not even the 5 biggest threat at the time of war.
Just because Bush may have technically had a right to invade Iraq because of a UN resolution doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

Also, you ignored the other points made in my post:

If Clarke is such a partisan, then why did he serve under Reagan and Bush I as Assistant Secretary of State? And why did he serve under Bush II for 2 years?

Bush should not base the war on what Saddam had THEN, he should base it on what Saddam has NOW. Would you agree?

Bush at the very least was dishonest when he claimed:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

Would you agree?

 

[rikzilla]

I have already rebutted your 'snapshot'. I'll repeat it again: With the years and years of intelligence gathered on Iraq, the best you could do was come up with a list of 10 links to terrorism.

Yeah, I could have stayed at it and had a list much longer, but why? You will please note that my 10 points were posted prior to the actual invasion....and yet stand to this date.

Who knows how accurate the intelligence is on some of them? Maybe it's as poor as the intelligence we had on WMD.
I will give you a list of 15 ties to terrorists for Saudi Arabia, but I don't need a microscope:
Abdulaziz Alomari
Satam M.A. Al Suqami
Wail M. Alshehri
Waleed M. Alshehri
Marwan al-Shehhi
Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad
Ahmed Alghamdi
Hamza Alghamdi
Hani Hanjour
Salem Alhazmi
Saeed Alghamdi
Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi
Ahmed Alnami
Majed Moqed
Nawaf Al-Hazmi
Oh yeah, and some guy named Osama Bin Laden

Apples and oranges. The terrorists I named were honored guests of the Iraqi government. The ones you named were Saudis, but show me again your evidence that the Saudi government sponsored, aided, or otherwise abetted these jihadis? Hmm? As I said in my thread, put up or shut up.

Again: Iraq was not even the 5 biggest threat at the time of war.
Just because Bush may have technically had a right to invade Iraq because of a UN resolution doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.
Doesn't mean it wasn't either. So you now agree the invasion was legit? That's mighty enlightened of you man.

Also, you ignored the other points made in my post:

Like I said....me/you = Randi/dowser :yawn:

If Clarke is such a partisan, then why did he serve under Reagan and Bush I as Assistant Secretary of State? And why did he serve under Bush II for 2 years?

Dunno, why don't you ask him. Asking me is fairly pointless. Maybe he needed the work? Maybe he didn't want to lose his vacation or dental plan?

Bush should not base the war on what Saddam had THEN, he should base it on what Saddam has NOW. Would you agree?

Well thanks to GWB all Saddam has now is a rumpled suit and a US Army toothbrush. (Allah knows he needs it...you see his teeth? yech!)

Bush at the very least was dishonest when he claimed:


Would you agree?

No, I would not...but you knoew that already. You and others here have failed to show any solid evidence that GWB knew Saddam's WMD bag was empty. I guess those 5,000 rotting Kurds are playing possum?

-z

 

[clk]

Apples and oranges. The terrorists I named were honored guests of the Iraqi government. The ones you named were Saudis, but show me again your evidence that the Saudi government sponsored, aided, or otherwise abetted these jihadis? Hmm? As I said in my thread, put up or shut up.

The 9/11 commission report clearly stated that Saudi Arabia “was a place where Al Qaeda raised money directly from individuals and through charities,” and indicated that “charities with significant Saudi government sponsorship,” diverted funding to Al Qaeda

Dunno, why don't you ask him. Asking me is fairly pointless. Maybe he needed the work? Maybe he didn't want to lose his vacation or dental plan?

Oh come on! Clarke isn't stupid, he could have easily gone into academia. He would not have served under three Republican presidents if he was the partisan shill you claim he is. Also, when a new administration takes office, they get rid of all of the partisans...Bush I and Bush II would not have kept him if he is what you claim he is.

No, I would not...but you knoew that already. You and others here have failed to show any solid evidence that GWB knew Saddam's WMD bag was empty. I guess those 5,000 rotting Kurds are playing possum?

Everyone knows Saddam had WMD in the early nineties. That is not the point! Bush knew in February 2003 that a large amount of his intelligence was wrong and that there was a good chance Saddam no longer possessed WMD. So why did he claim in March 2003 that there was 'no doubt' Saddam had WMD? How is that not dishonest?