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.
My point in all of this isn't whether Bush lied us into war. I don't think he did. I genuinely think that he suspected Saddam of possibly having WMD and our intelligence (which ended up being faulty) supported that.
But, WMD was a minor reason for removing Saddam. The neo-con policy-makers were salivating at the thought of reducing our reliance on Saudi Arabia, having troops on both sides of Iran to send them a message, getting Iraq's oil fields up and running again, spreading democracy throughout the Middle-East to reduce the sway of Islamic extremism, and getting rid of a consistent thorn in our side (Saddam).
Did the Bush administration lie about WMD? No. But, did the Bush administration use cherry-picking, hyberpole, and smokescreens about WMD's as a way to drum up support for the war and distract people from the real strategic and geo-political reasons for said war? Yes. That does not constitute lying, but it does constitute dishonesty.
Although naive, we should expect more from a POTUS, especially after our psycholigical vulnerability after 9/11. It seems that this very vulnerability was taken full advantage of. Cherry picking for the sake of being dishonest is, in fact...lying.
I have found there is no use talking to people who believe Bush lied. They believe it as fervently as any radical islamist believes there are a whole bunch of virgins waiting for him in heaven. It doesn't matter that Clinton, Kerry, Pelosi, the French intelligence services, the English all warned the world about Saddam and WMDs. Nope. The liberal worldview is Bush and Rove lied and there is no changing that.
For the umpteenth time, nobody knew for certain what if any weapons Saddam actually had in 2002. We did know nearly exactly what he had at the end of the Gulf War, and we did know exactly what UNSCOM had seized or destroyed by December 1998. But there was a gap. Where were the rest? Well, in the summer of 1995, Hussein Kamel, Iraq's absolute, #1 top dog on special weapons had defected to the US, bringing suitcases full of papers with him. By those and by the information brought out in his debriefings, Iraq had hastily and unilaterally destroyed stocks of WMD at the end of the Gulf War for fear that they would be used as grounds for punishing Iraq if they ever fell into Western hands. The descriptions of the types and amounts of weapons destroyed were an almost exact match to The Gap. If Kamel was on the up-and-up -- and absolutely everything else he said would later check out perfectly -- Saddam had virtually no weapons left at all. But could you be sure? Could you have 100% faith in Hussein Kamel, or did it make sense still to assure that Saddam had nothing left. It was that lingering bit of residual doubt that Bush played on. The rational thing by 2003 would have been to let Hans Blix complete his inspections, but Bush wouldn't stand for that. Despite having given his word to Congress to try everything short of war first, he instead tried to interupt and discredit everything else until he could get the military ready for the invasion he'd wanted all along. As soon as they were even close to ready, he went. The largest protests in the history of the world preceded that. Only a handful of nations actually thought the invasion was the right thing to do. They were wrong...the protesters were right...
Although naive, we should expect more from a POTUS, especially after our psycholigical vulnerability after 9/11. It seems that this very vulnerability was taken full advantage of. Cherry picking for the sake of being dishonest is, in fact...lying.
Slimy? Yes? Self-serving? Yes. Taking advantage of the overtones of a national tragedy? Yes. Was it obfuscation to stress what a scumbag Saddam was when we used to be buddies with him back in the 80's? Yes.
But, lying? I don't think so. It came right up to the line but didn't cross over in my opinion.
"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 USA 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
"We 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
For the umpteenth time, nobody knew for certain what if any weapons Saddam actually had in 2002. We did know nearly exactly what he had at the end of the Gulf War, and we did know exactly what UNSCOM had seized or destroyed by December 1998. But there was a gap. Where were the rest? Well, in the summer of 1995, Hussein Kamel, Iraq's absolute, #1 top dog on special weapons had defected to the US, bringing suitcases full of papers with him. By those and by the information brought out in his debriefings, Iraq had hastily and unilaterally destroyed stocks of WMD at the end of the Gulf War for fear that they would be used as grounds for punishing Iraq if they ever fell into Western hands. The descriptions of the types and amounts of weapons destroyed were an almost exact match to The Gap. If Kamel was on the up-and-up -- and absolutely everything else he said would later check out perfectly -- Saddam had virtually no weapons left at all. But could you be sure? Could you have 100% faith in Hussein Kamel, or did it make sense still to assure that Saddam had nothing left. It was that lingering bit of residual doubt that Bush played on. The rational thing by 2003 would have been to let Hans Blix complete his inspections, but Bush wouldn't stand for that. Despite having given his word to Congress to try everything short of war first, he instead tried to interupt and discredit everything else until he could get the military ready for the invasion he'd wanted all along. As soon as they were even close to ready, he went. The largest protests in the history of the world preceded that. Only a handful of nations actually thought the invasion was the right thing to do. They were wrong...the protesters were right...
What really got me boiling about the whole Iraq thing, was 2008. Bush and Cheney interviews. I am quite sure there are thousands of US families that view what happened and is still happening, with something other than a "so what" attitude.
Another funny thing to consider; the weapons and facilities inspectors that Saddam ended up kicking out (and thus violating the rules of the sanctions) actually were spies. They were caught installing eavesdropping equipment.
The U.S. government certainly is not a saint in this entire matter.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,363,738 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
bush didnt have to lie:
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1999
------------------------------
"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US House of Representatives
October 10, 2002
Congressional Record, p. H7777
-------------------------------------
"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on "Meet The Press"
November 17, 2002
------------------------
Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by President Clinton, states:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
-------------------------------
"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145
1998 & 1999 became irrelevant on September 11 2001 when priorties should have changed. Iraq was no imminent threat at that point while al Qaeda most definitely was, the al Qaeda that had no foothold in Iraq as Saddam considered it a threat. Too bad Bush & Co. insisted on following their pre 9/11 agenda as if 9/11 had no consequence.
And yeah, Rove saying his boss didn't lie. Now THERE's a surprise
Yeah, that was pretty slimy and politicking how the Democrats immediately forgot their former hawkish words and votes when the war became unpopular. They are the party of populist, feckless, and pacifist cowards who will always flirt with the progressives and liberals if the political winds blow that way. However, this does not mitigate the underhandedness of the cronies and policy-makers in the Bush administration.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,363,738 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by iwonderwhy2124
Yeah, that was pretty slimy and politicking how the Democrats immediately forgot their former hawkish words and votes when the war became unpopular. They are the party of populist, feckless, and pacifist cowards who will always flirt with the progressives and liberals if the political winds blow that way. However, this does not mitigate the underhandedness of the cronies and policy-makers in the Bush administration.
The war became unpopular due to being sold by the underhandedness of the cronies and the ChickenHawk policy-makers in the Bush administration. If you really want to talk about a bunch of feckless cowards, that would be a good place to start. You know, like the hypocrite who states while campaigning he doesn't believe in using the military for nation-building then proceeds to do exactly that?
The war became unpopular due to being sold by the underhandedness of the cronies and the ChickenHawk policy-makers in the Bush administration. If you really want to talk about a bunch of feckless cowards, that would be a good place to start. You know, like the hypocrite who states while campaigning he doesn't believe in using the military for nation-building then proceeds to do exactly that?
Hey, if you haven't noticed I'm no fan of the neo-cons. They have forsaken and perverted all of the core tenets of what it means to be a conservative. They have blundered repeatedly and destroyed the Republican party. I consider them to be just as much my political enemies as the progressives.
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.
cowards, that would be a good place to start. You know, like the hypocrite who states while campaigning he doesn't believe in using the military for nation-building then proceeds to do exactly that?
