Proof that Bush lied!

[merphie]

Refer Hans Blix and his requests for more time to determine if Saddam had WMD. The Bush Administration, having mobilised to go to war, could not stop the march to war.

He had 12 years. Plenty of time.

 

[merphie]

Your welcome. However statements I made are no longer opinion by virtue of history. The statements I made before the fact turned out to be true. So as an actualized reality they become nothing but informed correct judgment.

I don't agree with all of your statement. You make the world so black and white.

 

[a_unique_person]

He had 12 years. Plenty of time.

And the fact that he didn't find anything, tells you what?

 

[Shinytop]

Please list "many valid reasons for the war" and also include as a part of those reasons why they do not apply even more to other countries.

Take, for example, the WMD brouhaha. Say Iraq was a tough call. But Pakistan and North Korea were not. Pakistan had conducted nuclear tests and North Korea openly admitted to having a nuke program.

Take, for example, support for terrorist organizations. Iran and Saudi were KNOWN to be supporting terrorists.

Take, for example, human rights. Saddam was said to have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. It is estimated that millions of North Koreans have died of starvation. Millions.

Again, my challenge is for you to provide "many valid reasons" for the invasion of Iraq that 1) do not also apply to other countries and 2) justify the immediacy of the invasion.

Why not one valid reason? But I will list several I think and thought were reason enough.

He tried to have a former president killed.

He was shooting at our planes at least monthly and often weekly.

He did not live up to the stipulations of the resolutions that ended the first war so we were totally in the right to go back in.

Lying was not necessary.

 

[Shinytop]

what you suggest is no better than what was done. Commit an act of war? The only difference between your plan and Bush is he sent more people.

A raid is no better than a war? The raid and being sure was proposed to be better than starting a war over a lie. The war was needed.

But the difference is that I think any leader who treats the people with the contempt with which Bush sold the war should be tossed out on his ear, ya ear, that's the ticket.

I have too much respect for the people of this country and the men and women of our armed forces to accept expending their money and lives for a lie. When the expenditure is worth it, it is also worth honesty.

 

[kalen]

He had 12 years. Plenty of time.

.....to collect the best intelligence on Iraqi WMD which was then subsequently ignored.

I am beginning to see parallels between the war apologists and the woo-woo mentality discussed elsewhere on this site: choose to highlight the "hits" and ignore the "misses." One can end up believing some pretty whacked-out s**8 with that attitude.

 

[kalen]

Why not one valid reason? But I will list several I think and thought were reason enough.

He tried to have a former president killed.

He was shooting at our planes at least monthly and often weekly.

He did not live up to the stipulations of the resolutions that ended the first war so we were totally in the right to go back in.

Lying was not necessary.

Well, you know, some wars have been started for very petty reasons ... er, excuses, and lying was not necessary either. I guess you can add this one to the list. No, wait ... he lied.

 

[SezMe]

Why not one valid reason? But I will list several I think and thought were reason enough.

He tried to have a former president killed.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. An attempted murder is justification for the USA to invade Iraq? You gotta be kidding me. Can you see the Bush Administration trying to sell this: "Hey, he tried to kill my daddy so I'm going in there to kick his butt." Nobody, even right wing idealoges like Limbaugh or Hannity or North ever trotted out this as a reason to invade another country. I gotta give it to you, Shinytop, you get the cojones award for this one.

Why not one valid reason? But I will list several I think and thought were reason enough.

He was shooting at our planes at least monthly and often weekly.

And, if I remember correctly, missed every time. And we blasted any radar and/or missile sites that were involved.

But, hey, we gotta defend our honor. Let's throw thousands of USA lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and hundreds of thousands of wounded and disabled on all sides into the meat grinder just to make sure that ***hole doesn't shoot at us anymore.

Why not one valid reason? But I will list several I think and thought were reason enough.

He did not live up to the stipulations of the resolutions that ended the first war so we were totally in the right to go back in.

So, we are justified in invading every country that has not lived up to UN resolutions. Do I have that right? How 'bout Israel? They are in violation of numerous UN resolutions? I am sure there are numerous other nations that have not complied with UN resolutions. I would even guess that the good 'ol US of A is in violation of some. Should we invade us?

Nice try...wanna take another shot at it?

 

[Shinytop]

Well, you know, some wars have been started for very petty reasons ... er, excuses, and lying was not necessary either. I guess you can add this one to the list. No, wait ... he lied.

I am so glad you agree!

Petty reasons, I feel you are calling the reasons I listed petty. But facts are that you can travel the world only if other countries know you defend your citizens. Your soldiers can only be respected if your enemies know they will bring down the wrath of Hell if they harm them. And a nation cannot keep the respect of other nations when they allow their leaders and former leaders to be assassinated by thug states. Petty? I think not.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

I don't agree with all of your statement. You make the world so black and white.

Really?
Which part of my statement do you not agree with?

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

I remember a conversation with a right-wing co-worker at the time of the invasion. I was the "token" Canadian, and was called on to defend Canada's refusal to join the "Coalition of the Duped". I asked my co-worker "what if no WMD's are found?". His reply was "then everything's off", meaning Bush truly screwed up and presumably he'd stop supporting Bush.

In the Reno Gazette a few days ago they put quotes from citizens regarding current news. One Bush supporter said in defense of the lack of WMD's found (I'm paraphrasing from memory): "Bush is a great leader who makes decisons. It's better to make a wrong decision then fix it rather than do nothing at all".

Charlie (Iraq is broken, please fix it) Monoxide

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

"Bush is a great leader who makes decisions. It's better to make a wrong decision then fix it rather than do nothing at all".



That is more telling and grievous that anything I could ever say...>sigh<

 

[SezMe]

Pepto is notably absent since starting this thread. Maybe he's at TAM3?

 

[Ziggurat]

So, we are justified in invading every country that has not lived up to UN resolutions. Do I have that right? How 'bout Israel? They are in violation of numerous UN resolutions? I am sure there are numerous other nations that have not complied with UN resolutions. I would even guess that the good 'ol US of A is in violation of some. Should we invade us?

What a complete strawman. General assembly resolutions (the kind that routinely criticise Israel but never lift a finger for, say, China's oppression of Tibet, Iran's torturing of dissidents, etc. - but let's not call that bias what it really is, antisemitism) carry no weight beyond PR, and rightly so. Very few countries are actually in violation of security council resolutions, and Israel and the US are certainly not on that list. Can you name any other country where the UN security council promised severe consequences if they did not comply? I doubt it.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Your argument fails instantly.

What argument? I'm asking for proof that Bush lied.

The UN was still actively investigating the WMD question, as it had not turned up any evidence they existed, and was still investigating the issue. They wanted more time to conclusively prove the issue either way. They were right. An ex Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, a conservative, has stated part of the reason for the war to start when it did was that if Blix was allowed to complete the investigation, then the main pretext for the war was lost.

If the UN was still actively investigating the WMD question, how does this prove that Bush knew there were no WMD?

The head of the IAEA was saying there was no evidence of development of nuclear weapons, and was roundly condemned for doing so. He was right.

Show me where anyone says this war was just about finding nuclear weapons.

'Axis of Deciet' by Andrew Wilkie, and Australian, details the way that the intelligence community was manipulated by the conservative government. An assesment that 'X could possibly be Y' would be changed to say that "X is Y". Qualified statements by professionals were routinely changed to absolutes.

Andrew Wilkie actually resigned from the Intelligence agency he worked for before the war, saying that the war was being started on false pretences, the 'evidence' for WMD was incomplete at best, and in no way indicated a threat to the west or anyone else. He was right. Here is an interview with him, before the war started.

Form your link, Willikie's main concern was that Saddam would leave behind a scorched Earth, about which Willikie was wrong.

The only thing he got wrong was that he thought there must have been something there. He was absolutely correct about the ability of Iraq to threaten being non-existent.

And this is the only important part to this discussion. No one knew for certain the state of Saddam's WMD, not even Saddam himself, how could G.W. Bush (whom the left thinks is stupid anyway) know something the rest of the world did not know?

What he does say is that the US and Australia had been committed to the war from about the middle of 2002. Once set in motion, the march to war was not going to be stopped.

It's called follow-through. Make up your mind to do something and do it.

http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/All/01A33C10272BF7A2CA256CE500837A10

Remember what the war was about? It was about the war on terror.

Yes. This is not a discussion on what the war was about, or if the war was justified. Where is the proof that Bush lied?

Another Australian Intelligence community member, actually tried to go to visit the Prime Minister, John Howard, personally, to tell him the evidence for WMD was not right. He, too, was right.

Again, how does this affect the Bush administration? How does this prove that Bush lied?

Dr David Kelly, of Great Britain, was a part of the UN inspection team in Iraq. He failed to provide the required answers on WMD, and paid the price. I am sure others in the intelligence community got the message. Don't rock the boat, tell the boss what he wants to hear.

If this is is true, so what? How does this prove that anyone knew anything before the war?

 

[merphie]

And the fact that he didn't find anything, tells you what?

Lots. The fact he looked for 12 years and asked for more time suggest he thought there was something to find. I believe it would be difficult with your government babysitters in tow.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Re: Re: Proof that Bush lied!

False dichotomy.

You are incorrect. The question is "Did Bush lie about WMD?". The answer is "yes" or "no".

First, I think it would be impossible to "prove" Bush lied. Proof does not exist in political matters. Well, rarely.

A witness to Bush stating that he knew there were no WMD, but he was going ahead with the war would be damning evidence, not necessarily proof. Documents or recordings of high administrative meetings where the discussion was that they knew there no WMD, but they were going to lie about it woould be proof.

But your alternative is not the only one. Try this: The Bush Administration had a documented prediliction for invading Iraq. After 911, it became possible to achieve this goal by various means. One was the selective use of supportive information. Another was to ignore (or worse) dissenting opinion. Through the use of such means, the objective was achieved.

So what? Clinton and most of the Democratic Senators had a stiffy to take out Saddam also. As long as were talking conspiracy, consider that maybe who was president didn't matter a twig and that our government has been planning this for a long time on both sides of the party line. That makes the Democrats turncoats.

In other words, Bush did not lie and the intelligence was not necessarily flawed. But we're still at war. So my return challenge to you is: Prove (using your word) that the Bush Administration used "every possible means" (I think those are the words) cited in the congressional authorization to find an alternative to invasion. And (this part is easier) show on what date the Bush Administration went back to congress for final approval (as required by the authorizing legislation) before commencing military action. Hint: they didn't.

I don't believe that the Bush administration used every possible means to avoid the war, quite the opposite. I happen to agree that taking Saddam out of power was and is a good thing. If you are trying to get me to admit that Bush wanted to remove Saddam from power, don't bother, I already agree. We have established motive that would temp Bush to lie, where is the proof that he did lie?

 

[peptoabysmal]

If you Bushites need solid proof that your feurher had an agenda and is sticking to it, forget it. There is no proof. Karl Rove made sure that everyone involved has clean hands.

There is no proof, so I'll throw out some more conspiracy...

Get over it. You man won and we all will pay dearly for for it ...

Consider the possibility that we might have a slightly better world for it. Only time will tell.

Charlie (I pray to my atheist deity that evangelicals will soon see the light) Monoxide

 

[Kopji]

Is only believing what you want to believe lying or being a fool?

Main Entry: ty·rant
Pronunciation: 'tI-r&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tirant, from Old French tyran, tyrant, from Latin tyrannus, from Greek tyrannos
1 a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b : a usurper of sovereignty
2 a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power

 

[peptoabysmal]

Refer Hans Blix and his requests for more time to determine if Saddam had WMD. The Bush Administration, having mobilised to go to war, could not stop the march to war.

If anything has surfaced after this war had begun, it is that the U.N. could not be trusted regarding Iraq. Who cares what Mr. Blix had to say?