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.
Should There Be A Truth Commission To Investigate If Bush Lied About Saddam's Terrorists Connections And WMDS
Many people still feel President Bush Lied.
Back on September 29, 1992, Al Gore criticized President George Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism.
Al Gore even mentions Iraq's WMDs.
Please turn on your computer's speakers.
Yes, there should be a Truth Commission.
Just to end all discussions and get to the facts
of who did what, who ordered it, who carried it out and when was it done.
who knew about it, is small potatoes, but if it's the only way to get it done, so be it.
Yes, there should be a Truth Commission.
Just to end all discussions and get to the facts
of who did what, who ordered it, who carried it out and when was it done.
who knew about it, is small potatoes, but if it's the only way to get it done, so be it.
Here's another brief video
Hillary On Iraq... and Petreaus "Betray us" YouTube - She Changed
Back on September 29, 1992, Al Gore criticized President George Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism.
Al Gore even mentions Iraq's WMDs.
Please turn on your computer's speakers.
So basically, this is completely irrelevant to when George W Bush decided we should go to war with Iraq. Unless you think that during the intervening decade we didn't acquire any additional information, and that the UN inspectors were idiots.
As to your poll, I don't think Bush lied, at all. I think he unduly influenced information assessments to support his pre-formed opinions, and weeded out information that didn't support those opinions. Which is a pi**-poor way to use your information services and usually leads to exactly the kind of mistake that landed us in Iraq. But I do think W sincerely believed that he was addressing a potential threat as well as rectifying the error he believed his father has committed in leaving Saddam in power.
And any investigation would be pointless, since we already have several books describing the details of the rush to war.
Back on September 29, 1992, Al Gore criticized President George Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism.
Al Gore even mentions Iraq's WMDs.
Please turn on your computer's speakers.
You want to believe in your president and what he says.
(even when he is from the other party)
Nobody doubted him on this issue.
(he had pictures, maps with little arrows)
Why would he "make stuff up"
(wasn't 9/11 enough excitement for him)
But them ugly facts keep showing up.
(unless he had no clue)
There should be a gigantic investigation held by the civilians of the United States.
What truth do you think are you going to get out of some Government appointed Commission? They could give 2 ****s about whether the truth was told. They are all buddies and insiders.
This is why they try to humiliate Ron Paul with tinfoil hats when he speaks out on the wars.
The links to these quotes are all over the internet.
"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
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
If the Senators and Representatives you've quoted from 2002 were relying on the information reports distributed by Bush's administration, and those reports were issued on the basis of intelligence-gathering that had been corrupted by the Bush administration's insistence that Saddam was involved with the 9/11 terrorists or Al Qaeda or WMD's, then the quotes you've provided are pointless.
The intelligence-gathering process should be neutral, no special weight or evaluative consideration should be given to support foregone conclusions. There have been repeated assertions made by people involved in that process that during the Bush administration, the process was not neutral, and that information supporting the Bush agenda passed scrutiny easily, while information contradicting that agenda was doubted and excluded from assessments.
If members of the legislature then relied on these skewed assessments, and gave those assessments weight because the expectation was that such intelligence assessments would not be skewed, those members of the legislature cannot have their conclusions then used to support the administration's agenda.
Deliberate misinformation does not have to be the foundation for discrediting information. Just like if a pharmaceutical company only included positive data when reporting on a drug trial, and discarded any negative data, anyone then relying on that report would not be liable for their statements about the performance of the drug. If they have good reason to rely on the report, but the report turns out to be faulty, it is not the commentator who is liable, it is the pharmaceutical company that produced the report.
The Bush administration did not have to deliberately mislead the public or the legislature. Their pursuit of any damaging intel against Saddam and their disregard of non-damaging intel was all that was necessary to corrupt the process. Anyone subsequently relying on the assessments that were the fruit of the corrupted process was in no way responsible for the faulty assessments.
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.
