Canceled.LTroll.29
Banned
So you can't explain them away with your "Bush lied, people died" mantra?
Who is lying
- Thread starter PorterM
- Start date
Why would I have to? No one died as a result of those quotes. Bush was the one who engaged in a propoganda campaign to lead the nation to war, and a lot of kids did die from that. So, he did in fact lie, leading to kids dying.
None of those quotes caused people to die. Bush's war caused people to die.
You seem very confused. As always, I'm trying to help.
McClellan admitted? He admitted nothing ....he repeated a laundry list of left wing accusations that have been around for 7 years....he offers no proof of anything he says, he offers only opinion ...and old opinions at that....
Accusation is not proof no matter how many times or by how many people its repeated....
Canceled.LTroll.29
Banned
The point is that everyone knew Saddam had WMD.
Bush did what Congress authorized him to do.
Bush did what Congress authorized him to do.
Yeah..I believe Albright and Gore worked for the Clinton admin before they made those statements in the infamous quotes
Were they lying for Clinton after he left office...???
Congress didn't authorize him to rush to war. They authorized the use of force if necessary, and most made clear (even Dick Armey, btw) that they expected the President to use it as a last resort, after all options had failed.
In March of 2003, Hans Blix reported to Congress that the inspectors had unfettered access to every single suspected weapons site. Why weren't they allowed to continue? Why do we now have over 4,000 dead, and over 30,000 maimed, and who knows how many dead Iraqi civilians...when there was still an option to verify whether he did or did not have WMD's?
That's the question that makes you squirm in your seat, and makes all of those '90's quotes completely irrelevant, and makes Bush the equivalent of a war criminal, whose only legacy will be a dishonest, unnecessary war that killed a whole lot of people.
Canceled.LTroll.29
Banned
Where are the WMD now?
Did they disappear into the memory hole along with the Democrats' certainty that Saddam had them (and he did, by all accounts)?
Did they disappear into the memory hole along with the Democrats' certainty that Saddam had them (and he did, by all accounts)?
That doesn't even make sense.
Still, if they wrote about anything happening in the admin at the time they were in the admin, and it was corroborated by about a dozen other sources, including British intel, a Senate investigation & other admin insiders, I'd feel like kind of an idiot to keep putting my hands over my ears & yelling as loud as I can, like you do....
It's a mystery, but I'm not sure how it's relevant at this point. If Hans Blix had been allowed to continue, we would have at least been able to verify that they weren't in Iraq, even if they were moved; invading a country without WMD's would have been off the table.
Again - that's the crux of the question, which you keep missing, though I keep trying to help.
There is just as much chance, and just as much proof (or lack thereof) that Saddam destroyed them, as there is that he moved them to Syria. Either way, invading Iraq was completely unnecessary for our national security.
Canceled.LTroll.29
Banned
"It's a mystery"?
Do you think that's good enough, even had it been known at the time? Saddam was not just required to dispose of his WMDs, he was required to verify that he had done so. He ignored or defied the UN and every diplomatic attempt to enforce compliance met with more obfuscation.
If he had elected to use chemical or biological weapons, what would have been the result?
What American President would have taken that chance?
Do you think that's good enough, even had it been known at the time? Saddam was not just required to dispose of his WMDs, he was required to verify that he had done so. He ignored or defied the UN and every diplomatic attempt to enforce compliance met with more obfuscation.
If he had elected to use chemical or biological weapons, what would have been the result?
What American President would have taken that chance?
Blix & some others believed Saddam actually destroyed his last WMD programs in '91, but kept hinting that they had them to create an aura of fear & uncertainty in the rest of the world. If that's true, Saddam definitely sucks, and it's not as if we needed more proof than he did, but it's still not a reason to commit to a war.
I have a higher standard for the use of our military, particularly on an endeavor that has so much uncertainty; I mean, people really did think this might take 6 months, and cost very few lives. We're 5 years in, and the level of destruction in terms of human lives & infrastructure is truly staggering. I just don't think that's something to be engaged in lightly, or "just to be sure" that someone doesn't have WMD's.
The war debate has always been between people who feel that it is a tool that can be used for a variety of purposes, and those who feel it is a last resort, when all other options have failed. I'm in the latter group. I haven't served, but I know people that do; they're not cannon fodder. They're human.
Good Luck
New member
Anyone who admits to reality knows that Congress had access to the same intelligence that the WH had. Even more so, since the House and Senate Intelligence Committees had access to the raw data and their own set of intelligence analysts. As a result of those intelligence estimates, we have multiple quotes from congress about the potential threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Those conclusions and statements made by senators and congress persons were their own conclusions, not (as some claim) mandated by the WH. As such, the claim that Bush lied to Congress to go to war is a false claim.
However, what Bush told the PEOPLE of the United States is a completely different kettle of fish. Trying to claim the Iraqi missile program (in its infancy at best) meant the capability to strike at the U.S directly was a flat out lie. The best missile on the design boards would barely reach southern Europe. The claim that Iraq was a gnat's eyebrow from developing nuclear capability was a lie. And in many other instances when the president made a direct statement to the people of the United States about the threat posed by Iraq, he did not tell the full truth, or flat out lied. The fact is, Bush DID use lies to gain popular support for invading Iraq.
However, what Bush told the PEOPLE of the United States is a completely different kettle of fish. Trying to claim the Iraqi missile program (in its infancy at best) meant the capability to strike at the U.S directly was a flat out lie. The best missile on the design boards would barely reach southern Europe. The claim that Iraq was a gnat's eyebrow from developing nuclear capability was a lie. And in many other instances when the president made a direct statement to the people of the United States about the threat posed by Iraq, he did not tell the full truth, or flat out lied. The fact is, Bush DID use lies to gain popular support for invading Iraq.
Canceled.LTroll.29
Banned
Maybe former CIA director John Deutch was lying when he testified before the US Senate Intelligence Committee on September 19, 1996, that "we believe that (Saddam) retains an undetermined quantity of chemical and biological agents that he would certainly have the ability to deliver against adversaries by aircraft or artillery or by Scud missile".
Maybe former US defense secretary William Cohen was lying when he said: "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons . . . I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001 that Saddam might be three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons, and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with the range to reach Europe.
Maybe Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that "we have to find and destroy them".
Maybe Al Gore was lying when he declared, based on what he learned as US vice-president, that Saddam had "stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country".
Finally, there's former president BJ Clinton, who in February, 1998 described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs".
Clinton reported, as did UN weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons".
"On the question of Iraq's stocks of anthrax, Blix reported "no convincing evidence" that they were ever destroyed. But there was "strong evidence" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it had admitted "and that at least some of this was retained". Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media", enough "to produce . . . 5000 litres of concentrated anthrax".
On the question of VX, Blix reported that his inspections team had information that conflicted with Iraqi accounts. The Iraqis claimed they had produced VX only as part of a pilot program but that the quality was poor and the agent was never "weaponised". But according to Blix, the inspections team discovered Iraqi documents that showed the quality of the VX to be better than declared. The team also uncovered "indications that the agent" had been "weaponised".
Blix reported there were 6500 "chemical bombs" that Iraq admitted producing but whose whereabouts were unknown. Blix's team calculated the amount of chemical agent in those bombs at 1000 tonnes. As Blix reported, "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for".
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/19/1055828433374.html
Maybe former US defense secretary William Cohen was lying when he said: "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons . . . I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001 that Saddam might be three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons, and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with the range to reach Europe.
Maybe Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that "we have to find and destroy them".
Maybe Al Gore was lying when he declared, based on what he learned as US vice-president, that Saddam had "stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country".
Finally, there's former president BJ Clinton, who in February, 1998 described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs".
Clinton reported, as did UN weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons".
"On the question of Iraq's stocks of anthrax, Blix reported "no convincing evidence" that they were ever destroyed. But there was "strong evidence" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it had admitted "and that at least some of this was retained". Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media", enough "to produce . . . 5000 litres of concentrated anthrax".
On the question of VX, Blix reported that his inspections team had information that conflicted with Iraqi accounts. The Iraqis claimed they had produced VX only as part of a pilot program but that the quality was poor and the agent was never "weaponised". But according to Blix, the inspections team discovered Iraqi documents that showed the quality of the VX to be better than declared. The team also uncovered "indications that the agent" had been "weaponised".
Blix reported there were 6500 "chemical bombs" that Iraq admitted producing but whose whereabouts were unknown. Blix's team calculated the amount of chemical agent in those bombs at 1000 tonnes. As Blix reported, "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for".
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/19/1055828433374.html