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.
All of this stuff is already widely known by anybody who follows the news:
U.S. And Iraq Go Way Back - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml - broken link)
I wouldn't say that we encouraged him to use poisonous gas...but we conveniently looked the other way. And when he no longer suited our interests we turned on him and used the gas as an excuse as to why we wanted him gone. Was that hypocritical and opportunistic politics on our part? You bet.
John Keegan's history of the Iraq War points to evidence that several U.S. administrations encouraged Saddam to use these weapons against the Iranians. It is upon his assertions that I based my earlier post.
Acc. to Keegan, when Saddam attacked Kuwait in 1991, he believed the CIA had signed off on it, but really there was a misunderstanding in communication.
Keegan's work is not the best history of the war, it seems rushed like he was trying to make a deadline, but still the evidence he presents is pretty clear cut.
As for the weapons, I'm sure the military secured these in the first six months of the 2003 invasion. They just haven't told the public that they've found them.
It WAS lies. Your point should be that it wasn't ONLY lies. That there were also mere misrepresentations of some facts, cover-ups and denials of others, and deliberate manipulations of people's natural doubts and fears. Lying after all was only one part of an overall strategy of misdirection and deceit, and the Bush administration is being unfairly labeled as being nothing but a bunch of liars on this account. That's what your argument should be.
I thought I was on your ignore list?
Anyway, in 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments."
The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's WMD."
No, what people are saying is that history is a continuum, whether over Iraq or anything else, and that when you take statements out of the context of 1998 and try to force them into the context of 2003, you are being just as deliberately dishonest as was the Bush administration.
How is weapons of mass destruction out of context?
These quotes are taken out of context and the date is important to note as it refers to Desert Fox which did not include invading and occupying Iraq. Why should it have?...Clinton did not have a grudge against Saddam because of his daddy and Gore did not have secret meetings with big oil. The bottom line is Bush lied as Cheney pulled the strings.
As usual, your standards of proof are woefully inadequate.
So, let's see... Dems repeatedly state Saddam Hussein and Iraq have and have used weapons of mass destruction from at least 1998 on, and that's 'out of context' - and following that the Bush admin says Saddam Hussein and Iraq have weapons of mass destruction and somehow that's 'a lie.'
So, let's see... Dems repeatedly state Saddam Hussein and Iraq have and have used weapons of mass destruction from at least 1998 on, and that's 'out of context' - and following that the Bush admin says Saddam Hussein and Iraq have weapons of mass destruction and somehow that's 'a lie.'
Do you realize how idiotic that is?
Only in your mind.
How many Americans died as a result of what the Dems said?
Washington (CNN) -- Karl Rove, often described as President George W. Bush's brain, defended the former president in a new book against claims that he lied to the American public in order to invade Iraq in 2003.
"[D]id Bush lie us into war? Absolutely not," Rove wrote in his 516-page book, "Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight."
Bush did lie though. Here's one of his whoppers that got us into his illegal war:
Bush said, “I’ll be making up my mind (to invade Iraq) based on the latest intelligence.”
When Bush told the nation on 10-7-02 that Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of the country, he was telling millions of Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA was telling him. Bush had his minions repeat lies like these in Congressional Briefings.
So, let's see... Dems repeatedly state Saddam Hussein and Iraq have and have used weapons of mass destruction from at least 1998 on, and that's 'out of context' - and following that the Bush admin says Saddam Hussein and Iraq have weapons of mass destruction and somehow that's 'a lie.'
Do you realize how idiotic that is?
The issue isn't 'did Iraq have WMDs' the issue is was Iraq a threat to the US requiring the US to act in self defense? The answer is no. The CIA said no. Bush told the nation the answer was yes. That's a lie.
As for the presence of WMDs in Iraq, the WMD inspectors on the ground actively inspecting IRaq for WMDs were finding nothing of import.
That was the best indicator for the existence of WMDs in Iraq...not 10 year old intelligence reports and gut feelings.
Bush said, “I’ll be making up my mind (to invade Iraq) based on the latest intelligence.”
Every government report says the "powers that be" already decided and that was in early/mid '02.
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.
