Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, kudos for being the FIRST poster not to skedaddle from the question.
I don't think that I ever said that Bush should be let "off the hook" over the decision-making process that led up to the invasion. I have my own problems with the way things were handled. It is little-noted that Richard Armitage once said that he and Powell were not necessarily against an invasion of Iraq, but they wanted to wait until after the 2004 election. That would have given more time for the planning of phase IV (occupation), along with perhaps time for better intel.
But again the question is whether Bush lied about WMD to get us into war, and even Prof. Carter agrees that the answer is no.
Bush never convinced convinced me that he had made a strong enough case to invade Iraq. It was clear by the way he set up the UN inspections that he was hoping they would fail to work. Saddam would stay true to form and interfere with the inspectors, and basically replay the same games that worked so well against Clinton, and he did not disappoint.
Notice the MSM doesn't report on the failed state of Libya.
Heh, we are talking about the same sycophantic media that swooned to Obama's claim that Yemen was one of the success stories of his Mid East policy.
"This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years," the president said on Sept. 10
They will themselves to forget that 90% of the dems voted for the war too. They also forget that Obama went to war against Libya, and did not even say a single word to the nation, nor the Congress. Obama just sent the bombers into Libya on Friday and went golfing on Saturday.
I guess that is how GW Booosh should have done it, eh libs? Just send in the military without a word to anyone. See how clean that is, no lies, just bombs dropping from US warplanes. Sweet, simple and clean.
Bush should have handled Iraq like Obama handled Libya. Just blow the country up, and when Saddam is murdered in the streets like Qaddafi, Bush could have just wiped his hands of Iraq and walked away, just like Obama did with Libya. Then the libs would be singing Bush's praises.
No one has forgotten that Congress believed the lies Bush was telling them, doesn't change the fact that Bush and his administration lied to everyone.
(emphasis mine, to demonstrate a point. Notice how you subtly morph from 'false statement' to 'lie.')
You keep posting that bogus link. BTW that was a Soros-funded "study."
First of all let's review the definition of lie. A lie is a false statement with intent to deceive. "Lie" and "false statement" are not equivalent. If I say that the Golden State Warriors are going to win the NBA title for sure this year, and it turns out that they don't is that a lie? No.
This thread is about whether Bush lied about WMD to get us into war with Iraq. He didn't. In fact it would have been difficult for him to do so since, for about the 10th time, everyone at the time, including Saddam's own senior officers, believed that he still had WMD.
"Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
"[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade."
Show me evidence of the aluminum tubes, gas centrifuges, uranium, or Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection. But you can't show the evidence because they are lies, false statements, BS, fantasies, or whatever (you) would like to call them.
(emphasis mine, to demonstrate a point. Notice how you subtly morph from 'false statement' to 'lie.')
You keep posting that bogus link. BTW that was a Soros-funded "study."
First of all let's review the definition of lie. A lie is a false statement with intent to deceive. "Lie" and "false statement" are not equivalent. If I say that the Golden State Warriors are going to win the NBA title for sure this year, and it turns out that they don't is that a lie? No.
This thread is about whether Bush lied about WMD to get us into war with Iraq. He didn't. In fact it would have been difficult for him to do so since, for about the 10th time, everyone at the time, including Saddam's own senior officers, believed that he still had WMD.
I will stay with Soros (and say to hell with the Koch brothers corporate agenda.)
Seriously? You want to turn this into a Romney thread?
You're not responding to my response to your post, but that is not unexpected. Respond to what I wrote in response to your post, or get added to a certain list of mine.
Bush never convinced convinced me that he had made a strong enough case to invade Iraq. It was clear by the way he set up the UN inspections that he was hoping they would fail to work. Saddam would stay true to form and interfere with the inspectors, and basically replay the same games that worked so well against Clinton, and he did not disappoint.
I was dead set against the invasion when people first started talking about it. I figured that Saddam was contained and was not our problem. But in time I changed my mind. I thought there was an array of special factors, such as the fact that Iraq had so much oil and the war would be self-funded, as I still remember Wolfowitz saying on Meet the Press.
The real problem with the Iraq war was that it was a 25 year project, and a US president only gets 8 years. And W Bush should have taken that into account.
I wonder what would have happened had McCain won in 2008. I don't think we would see ISIS controlling much of Iraq today, or Yazidi women being forced into sex slavery.
The simple fact is bi partisan support was given for the invasion from congress, including Hillary. You can hem and haw and deflect and blame but that will never change.
Lets at least put on our grown up pants and learn from the mistakes of the past instead of compartmentalizing the blame for political points and bumper sticker slogans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
