Bush Lied-intelligence and facts fixed to support war in Iraq

[ThAnswr]

I feel as if both of you missed my point. Which is only that Iraq did indeed have WMD. And the evidence was that he had used them previously. The poster that I quoted said "no, no, there was absolutely no evidence that he had them." Where is the evidence they were destroyed?

HAD them is the issue. Bush sold this war on the basis that Iraq HAS WMD's, was reconstituting their nuclear program, could launch an attack in 45 minutes, was actively involved in buying "yellow cake" in Niger, etc.

The evidence they had been destroyed was given by the various weapons inspection teams. Here's a good place to start and you can follow the links:

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=22

 

[ThAnswr]

You're not the first person to cite this, I've seen it a few times... it's statistical evidence that I haven't explored too much, but I'm willing to bet it includes something like "war in Iraq (or the war on terror) contributed to a greater number of terrorist attacks against the US." And/or foreign troops. Because otherwise it's hard to see how 2005 or 2004 was far more dangerous for global citizens than any other year. As a point of fact, it lacks something; as a statistic, it's not one I'm worried about...why bother "confronting with this fact?" I have no idea what the point of it is.

Let's take this logically for a moment.

If you're fighting against something (in this case terrorism), and more of what you're fighting against is happening, are you successful or unsuccessful in fighting that war? Are you winning or losing? And why would it make a difference if it includes Iraq or not? Terrorist acts were not occuring in Iraq before the American invasion and they're a daily occurence now.

So what's there to be confused about? Or is the confusion the fact that what folks thought would happen with the invasion of Iraq and downfall Saddam Hussein didn't happen and appears to have had the opposite effect?

 

[Bill_Sykes]

I feel as if both of you missed my point. Which is only that Iraq did indeed have WMD. And the evidence was that he had used them previously. The poster that I quoted said "no, no, there was absolutely no evidence that he had them." Where is the evidence they were destroyed?

First, you have to understand that the chemical weapons had a limited shelf life and the last time Saddam used chemical weapons was in the late 1980s. The UN after the first gulf war supervised the destruction of what was left of Saddam's stockpiles. The UN inspection have confirmed that there were no chemical weapons in Iraq. We Had Good Intel—The U.N.'s

Regarding chemical and biological weapons, the U.N. inspectors headed by Hans Blix conducted 731 inspections between November 2002 and March 2003. Despite claims by the U.S. government of the existence of specific stockpiles of weapons and active weapons programs, they found no evidence of either.

The UN inspectors and Hans Blix were right. Unfortuantely, these facts did not fit the policy and therefore was disregarded by Bush.

Bush intended to invade Iraq from day one without regard to WMDs or human rights violations. He lied to the American people and fixed intelligence and the facts to justify the invasion. It is very sad that many Bush supporters are unable to see the truth.

 

[catherine]

Well, since he's been reelected, how could X million Brits be so dumb?

Only the people in Blair's constituency voted for him, otherwise I think that he would have been out of a job! The rest of the country vote for whoever is representing their constituency. Fortunately for Blair some of the other Labour politicians are liked!

Tony Blair's new Government has been declared the worst supported in political history. Experts confirmed that Labour's 36% share of the vote is the lowest recorded.

 

[Setianarchist]

God, has the WMD issue died yet?

Has no one heard of the Duelfer (CIA) Report on Iraq's WMDs?

Or, if you prefer just a summary: Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq.

You know... what the weapons inspections were in the process of showing us before we marched ahead to act on the 'imminent threat.'

 

[Setianarchist]

Plus, consider Labour's opposition. The LibDems are really just an upstart, so the only other major competition is the conservative party/tories... and they're infinitely worse.

 

[Lebjwb]

I appreciate the tone of your responses even though I disagree with most of your opinions.
In defense of my "long windedness" I usually try to give my REASONS for my opinions along wiht the opinion.
But - to be brief in this one - military strategy is not something you put out for public knowledge. You especially don't advertise what your final goal is. You certainly don't want your enemies to know every facet of your decisoion making process. You don't expect your political opponenets to be your cheerleaders.
But - n time of war - I believe you SHOULD be able to expect your political opposition to not SIDE WITH THE ENEMY. Sadly, the democrats have abandoned this common expectation - hence the acrimony I have with them.
Democrats are perfectily entitled to offer differing views on how to fight terrorism - but they do NOT have the right to just OBSTRUCT any effort that Bush tries with the hope of crippling him.
That is the difference - honest differences on how to best DEFEAT the enemy is welcomed. Political crassness in ASSISTING the enemy is not.

How dare you! Show me any proof you have that the Democrats are siding with the terrorists?

In your twisted little world, 49% of the population is in bed with the terrorists.

 

[Viking]

Oh, indeed he was evil. I am glad he is gone too. If Bush had said only "we're going to war because Saddam is evil and we're freeing the Iraqis", then this thread wouldn't exist. But we all know that Bush was emphasizing our safety in the face of the WMDs that he claimed intelligence said was there (or soon would be). Saddam's evil dicatorship was just the icing on the cake.

How can somebody who has a Gandhi-quote in her signature defend somebody who lied to go to war?

 

[Teejay32]

Let's take this logically for a moment.

If you're fighting against something (in this case terrorism), and more of what you're fighting against is happening, are you successful or unsuccessful in fighting that war? Are you winning or losing? And why would it make a difference if it includes Iraq or not? Terrorist acts were not occuring in Iraq before the American invasion and they're a daily occurence now.

Logically, we didn't go to Iraq to prevent terror attacks in Iraq. We actually went to Iraq in part to prevent terror attacks in Israel. Every pre-war justification for Iraq concerned Saddam himself, who is a terrorist - we weren't supposed to just go out and take action against a collection of abstract concepts because we're nice people. So by your measure, "if you're fighting against something..." we've already fought that and won.

Now for the war on terror - "if you're fighting against something (in this case terrorism), and more of what you're fighting against is happening, are you successful or unsuccessful in fighting that war?" I know you're not one of those who still believes that those blowing themselves up in polling places are part of a noble resistance, on behalf of the people. We could stop attacks tomorrow probably by giving the explodees everything they want, and sticking around to enforce that. If so, would you consider that a success? I wouldn't. Thus the confusion.

 

[ThAnswr]

Logically, we didn't go to Iraq to prevent terror attacks in Iraq. We actually went to Iraq in part to prevent terror attacks in Israel. Every pre-war justification for Iraq concerned Saddam himself, who is a terrorist - we weren't supposed to just go out and take action against a collection of abstract concepts because we're nice people. So by your measure, "if you're fighting against something..." we've already fought that and won.

If after nearly 4 years, if what you are fighting against is not getting better but worse, you either do 1 of 2 things:

1) admit your tactics were wrong and change accordingly

2) admit you're completely wrong and get the hell out.

Pardon me, there is a third possibility and this seems to be the one Bush supporters favor most:

Never admit your tactics were wrong no matter what happens and no matter how many times what you're fighting against keeps happening, never admit you're wrong period, just keep plugging along at the cost of lives, bodies, money, etc.

Now for the war on terror - "if you're fighting against something (in this case terrorism), and more of what you're fighting against is happening, are you successful or unsuccessful in fighting that war?" I know you're not one of those who still believes that those blowing themselves up in polling places are part of a noble resistance, on behalf of the people. We could stop attacks tomorrow probably by giving the explodees everything they want, and sticking around to enforce that. If so, would you consider that a success? I wouldn't. Thus the confusion.

Yanno, asking "are you successful or unsuccessful in fighting that war" really isn't a trick question. Are you successful if you have more terrorist attacks or less terrorist attacks? How can someone possibly claim to be successful in the war on terrorism if the result of that war is more terrorism?

Is this one of those dreams or have I entered the Bizarro world.

 

[Setianarchist]

Saddam himself, who is a terrorist

"Terrorist" is the new "communist." What, is the name applied to any murderous thug you hate nowadays?

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

"Terrorist" is the new "communist." What, is the name applied to any murderous thug you hate nowadays?

Saddam is a murderous thug who supported terrorism. Do we hate him or love him?

 

[Setianarchist]

Saddam is a murderous thug who supported terrorism. Do we hate him or love him?

I hate carrots but that doesn't make them terrorists.

 

[Teejay32]

Yanno, asking "are you successful or unsuccessful in fighting that war" really isn't a trick question. Are you successful if you have more terrorist attacks or less terrorist attacks? How can someone possibly claim to be successful in the war on terrorism if the result of that war is more terrorism?

Is this one of those dreams or have I entered the Bizarro world.

Mine wasn't tricky either. If we give in to the terrorists and they stop attacking, is it a success? I say No, how about you?

"Terrorist" is the new "communist." What, is the name applied to any murderous thug you hate nowadays?

no, only if they fund, employ, shelter, untilize, train terrorists...we don't want to impugn the average Joe muderous thugs...

 

[Setianarchist]

no, only if they fund, employ, shelter, untilize, train terrorists...we don't want to impugn the average Joe muderous thugs...

The 9/11 Commision concluded, and I quote, that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Link?

Hell, Donnie Rumsfeld admitted it!

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

I hate carrots but that doesn't make them terrorists.

Let me help you out. Carrots are vegetables. Saddam is a terrorist.

 

[Teejay32]

terrorism doesn't begin & end with al-qaida, which is, at best, an amalgam of other groups anyway. Saddam launched surprise chemical attacks against Kurds, against Iranians, missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia, invaded and destroyed Kuwait, funded bus bombers, seized we don't know how many of his own citizens, attempted assassinations...he's a terrorist, for Pete's sake. Really.

 

[Setianarchist]

Saddam launched surprise chemical attacks against Kurds, against Iranians

... fully sanctioned or ignored by America at the time. By your definition, then, was Reagan a terrorist for giving monetary support to a terrorist?

missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia, invaded and destroyed Kuwait, funded bus bombers, seized we don't know how many of his own citizens, attempted assassinations...

In other words, he's a brutal, psychotic dictator in that he uses and abuses state power and not socially antinomian guerrilla tactics. Therefore, he's not a terrorist.

But anyway, oh how we've drifted from the topic at hand! Would you sanction the blatant fabrication of false reasons for launching a pre-emptive war?

 

[Laura]

How can somebody who has a Gandhi-quote in her signature defend somebody who lied to go to war?

I wasn't. I was explaining the precise nature of Bush's lie. If he'd just said that Saddam was evil and that was the real reason we went to war, he wouldn't have lied, right? That was my point.

 

[Rokkitsci]

I was explaining the precise nature of Bush's lie. If he'd just said that Saddam was evil and that was the real reason we went to war, he wouldn't have lied, right? That was my point.

If you are going to persist in calling Bush a liar, please tell me exactly what the "lie" was.

In this context - to me anyway - a lie involves intentional mistatement of fact with the intent of decieving others about a material fact. If you have a definition of "lie" substantially different from that - please post that definition prior to your response.

Lies do not derive from being mistaken about a fact. They do not derive from making political opponents unhappy - they do not derive from a having a higher strategy that effects the military situation.

In other words, you do NOT have to completely open your intestines for examination by your enemies in order to be immune from being called a liar.

I repeat - the mere POSSIBILITY that Saddam had WMDs was sufficient cause for his removal.

The WORST you can say about Bush's actions is that he was mistaken about the WMDs and that he did not FULLY elaborate all the military strategy that was behind the decision to remove Saddam.

In order to show Bush "lied" about Saddam, you would have to show that he KNEW - with certainty - that there were no WMDs with the intent of involving the USA in a war for reasons OTHER than the reasons he stated.

I don't think you can even come close to that.

The BEST you can do is say that you DISAGREE with his analysis of the intelligence data.

And at the bottom of all this is the REAL reason for all the opposition. Bush is GOP and any success he has makes it harder for DEMOCRATs to oppose him. If a DEMOCRAT were president - they would be all aglow with the situation. If you don't believe that - review their attitude toward Bosnia. No attack from Bosnia - no threat of attack - no UN approval - etc etc etc. Yet they still REVERE the "success" Clinton had in Bosnia, while denigrating a much more FANTASTIC success Bush 41 had in Kuwait, and are trying to UNDERMINE the current success in Iraq. pathetic if you ask me.

I am assuming that you would NOT have objected to the war IF there had been WMDs all over the place in Iraq. If you are pacifist to that extent, then I will not bother you further.

So - what level of probability would you consider valid to launch a war to eliminate Saddam. Would you be content to allow a 25% chance that Saddam had WMD?? or 50% or 75% or 99% = or would you just wait until he launched an anthrax attack against our troops before we even CONSIDERED taking care of him.

Much of this opposition to Bush makes the case that he was PREPARING for a war against Saddam BEFORE he had all the facts. GOOD FOR HIM !!!!! That is what RESONSIBLE leader do - plan ahead.

In fact, somewhere in the archives of the Pentagon - I would be willing to bet there are plans to take out London - or Mexico City - or <shudder> PARIS should the circumstances arise.

The fact that Bush IMMEDIATELY started revving up the engines to revise our plans to take out Saddam is a point in his favor as far as I am concerned.

AND - I am GLAD there were no WMD in Iraq - I always secretely hoped that Saddam was bluffing - and am GLAD that he was - less danger to our troops.