Did Bush lie?

[Kitsune]

Sry...but this "lying about the war"-thing. It is mentioned in this thread about the democrats so lets talk about it. This is one of the most disturbing things about this whole situation. Before the war the US government claimed on countless occasions that they KNEW about iraqi WMDs. They said they HAD information about them. CRYSTALCLEAR. No error possible. DEFINITIVE information. When the Iraqis presented their 12000 pages weapons report the US government said, that it would be just deception because it did not mention any WMDs, which the US KNEW to exist. DOUBTLESS. Because Iraq had chemical and biological WMDs and tried to aquire uranium for its nuclear program the war was necessary (they said).

Now after the war it is known that the US governement had no such information at all. Let alone precise or sure information. The Iraq-Niger uranium deal was a fraud...and an incredible bad one at that. No decent Secret Service of any nation would be mislead by theses forged documents.
The CIA did NOT approach the president with any warnings about Iraqi WMDs and demanded action. In fact it seems now that the White House has approached the various American intelligence agencies with the wish to find proof about WMDs to justify this war.

Sorry but...is this not lying? As I said...this is one of the things that truly puzzles me...I truly asks myself why Bush is not forced to step back...in fact...why is he not impeached? I mean...Clinton faced something like this because of some stupid affair with Mrs Lewinsky...but Bush STARTS A WAR with stuff like this...and the majority of Americans seems not to have a problem with it. Isn't that a bit odd?

Some remarks: This post is not meant as flaming. It is also not aboout the successes of the Iraq war (I do not think they are very great so far...but at least the Ba'ath regime was destroyed and Saddam will be brought to justice...that is at least something. But wether it was worth the risk of stirring up the Near East and the possible start of a civil war in Iraq is doubtable), even if the war would have been the best thing that happened to mankind in all of history it still would have been started with lies and exaggerations of the US government to the American people. And to the American soldiers.

Or did I get something wrong? If you are still supporting Bush, please do not feel offended through this post. Simply state why you still do it (do you read this Budanski? ;) ) and why you think that Bush acted correctly.

p-)

[mocking_loudly_died]

I'm eating a bowel of ice cream.

That’s my surreal response.

[Vance]

I'm eating a bowel of ice cream.

That’s my surreal response.
You're eating from a bowel? I'm sure a bowl would be much more sanitary.

[mocking_loudly_died]

I was being surreal, duh.

[papasmerf]

I'm eating a bowel of ice cream.

That’s my surreal response.
You're eating from a bowel? I'm sure a bowl would be much more sanitary.


rofl

[Kitsune]

At least You are fast !!! I finished this post, turned around to watch Jack Gruber DIE HARD in the showdown of the movie...turned round agian and already 4 replies.

WOW !!!


;)

[Deuterium]

No he didn't lie. He based his conclusions on the Intel that was provided to him.

[papasmerf]

I'll say this, WMD's or no WMD's, people like Saddam should be put to sleep, and the only thing I'm mad about is that we didn't bust him and his boys 12 years ago when we were already there in Iraq. As far as Bush goes, I don't think he's completely honest with us, but I wouldn't expect him to be, that's how them politicians are.

[He219]

Because Iraq had chemical and biological WMDs and tried to aquire uranium for its nuclear program the war was necessary (they said).
Wrong! Saddam was the immediate threat. His propensity to use such weapons along with the threat of their proliferation to 'other' hostiles and violations of GW1 peace terms were just a part of the equation...


Now after the war it is known that the US governement had no such information at all.
No information at all? Really...


But wether it was worth the risk of stirring up the Near East and the possible start of a civil war in Iraq is doubtable), even if the war would have been the best thing that happened to mankind in all of history it still would have been started with lies and exaggerations of the US government to the American people. And to the American soldiers.

Or did I get something wrong? and why you think that Bush acted correctly.

Remember WWII (as an analogy) - to make the world 'safe' for democracy - German (Hitler's) aim of 'Global Domination'...
Talk is cheap.

The bottom line is that history will follow it's own course.

The jury is still out....

'Damn straightt I supported resolving 12 years of BS. Saddam is gone now.

;)

[Deuterium]

Now after the war it is known that the US governement had no such information at all.


No information at all? Really...


Another clueless victim of the Lib media. He219 has it right.

[usa320]

Based on the intel he was given, no, he didnt lie.

I am still convinced that Saddam HUssein had a WMD capability durring the months leading up to the war.

He more than likely destroyed them for the sole purposes of making us look like assholes.

[Vance]

He more than likely destroyed them for the sole purposes of making us look like assholes.
He succeded. :|

[Groove]

Never forget. Saddam could attack USA almost everyday before the "liberation" of Iraq !

Groove

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Well I find a couple things that I'd like to discuss. Would the war be any different if they said "Ya we went Saddam outta power?" and not change there minds? Like theres been 4 main reasons to have this war (correct me if I am wrong)
1: WMD's, they havent been found yet but they have been use'd in this country before. It is possible they could be hidden very easily and that we could never find them.
2: Removing an evil regime...I dont have a problem with that. No arguements here.
3: Fighting terrorism, isnt there more terrorism and terrorism supporter's in Saudi Arabia? There is more of a terrorist threat in Afghanistan and in the border between Pakistan then in Iraq before the war started (Saddam only supported the PLO and suicide bombers to kill Israeli's).
4: That Iraq was a threat to US's national security. If I remeber right back in 1996 when Afghanistan declared war on the US it was seen as a "joke" to most. After 9-11 it was taken quite seriously. Personally I'm in no position to judge a regime like Saddam's capability, but it was severly crushed after 12 years of sanctions.

I'm not against the war I just feel they should have picked a reason and stuck with it the whole time.

[Deuterium]

After 9/11 the President announced the Global War on Terrorism. You do the math....

[Groove]

Well at least Bastards Point 3 is really "funny".

Mr. President and this administration KNOWS that the saudis are activ "terror" supporters. But again - the American SUVs dont drive with water in tanks :)

So as Rummy would say:

"Hope Allah Is Wearing Kevlar"

Groove

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

After 9/11 the President announced the Global War on Terrorism. You do the math....

True but then what about Iran,Pakistan and Syria? Theres plenty of people harbouring terrorists in those 3 countries and yet nothing has been done. Same with Saudi Arabia, plenty of money is going to terrorist's and we dont do anything about it but freeze a couple accounts here and there....

[Trigger]

Bastardchild wrote:

Well I find a couple things that I'd like to discuss. Would the war be any different if they said "Ya we went Saddam outta power?" and not change there minds? Like theres been 4 main reasons to have this war (correct me if I am wrong)
1: WMD's, they havent been found yet but they have been use'd in this country before. It is possible they could be hidden very easily and that we could never find them.
2: Removing an evil regime...I dont have a problem with that. No arguements here.
3: Fighting terrorism, isnt there more terrorism and terrorism supporter's in Saudi Arabia? There is more of a terrorist threat in Afghanistan and in the border between Pakistan then in Iraq before the war started (Saddam only supported the PLO and suicide bombers to kill Israeli's).
4: That Iraq was a threat to US's national security. If I remeber right back in 1996 when Afghanistan declared war on the US it was seen as a "joke" to most. After 9-11 it was taken quite seriously. Personally I'm in no position to judge a regime like Saddam's capability, but it was severly crushed after 12 years of sanctions.

I'm not against the war I just feel they should have picked a reason and stuck with it the whole time.
1. Yes, as has been stated before Iraq is the size of California. If they can bury MiGs in the desert why not WMDs.
2. Good. Me either.
3. More terrorism/terrorists? How do you know? They don't usually announce themsleves unless they're wearing Semtex vests. Sure they're more active now. Rats tend to scurry when you start burning their nests. Also, how do you know that we are not working behind the scenes with the Saudis? The government certainly isn't going to go broadcasting it all over the place. Just because it's not open warfare with tanks and bombers doesn't mean the terrorists aren't being rounded up.
4. hmmm 1996...seen as a joke by 'most'...If a certain someone in power in 1996 had been truly concerned about his country instead of his next blowjob, maybe just maybe we wouldn't be in the position of global asskicker like we are today. As far as twelve years of sanctions...one man could have solved that problem, but he chose to give the world 'the finger' and hide in a spider hole when it was time to pay the piper.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Well your right on some areas.
3. More terrorism/terrorists? How do you know? They don't usually announce themsleves unless they're wearing Semtex vests. Sure they're more active now. Rats tend to scurry when you start burning their nests. Also, how do you know that we are not working behind the scenes with the Saudis? The government certainly isn't going to go broadcasting it all over the place. Just because it's not open warfare with tanks and bombers doesn't mean the terrorists aren't being rounded up.


Actually I have being doing some researc into terrorism in Iraq, it was posted here on another thread feel free to find it and take a look. You guys are working with the Saudi's, but I do remind you that your relationship with the Saudi's hasnt always been smooth. Saudi's havent always co-operated with demands. So unless the level of co-operation has been "up'd" I dont see them doing much help unless it directly affects there won interests. Dont they have Al-Queda members in custody and refuse to let American authorities interogate/question them?(correct me if im wrong)



4. hmmm 1996...seen as a joke by 'most'...If a certain someone in power in 1996 had been truly concerned about his country instead of his next blowjob, maybe just maybe we wouldn't be in the position of global asskicker like we are today. As far as twelve years of sanctions...one man could have solved that problem, but he chose to give the world 'the finger' and hide in a spider hole when it was time to pay the piper.

Ok so if i put a map infront of you in 1996 and asked you were Afghanistan was would you have been able to find it?(I could but tell you anything about the country back then would be another story...) It wasnt taken seriously because it was a third world country that was across the world. Obviously not a direct threat to National security but still not good never the less.
Did they know there was terrorists there? Yes there was remeber a strike(1998 if i remeber correct) that was cancelled by Mr Clinton due to the worry about casualties that would happen and it would have been risky and dangerous for the people involved (special forces). At the time he was still suffering from the "Somalia syndrome", he obviously didnt want to risk the chance of any Americans not coming home alive.

As for Saddam, well you guys got him. It was his call, he screwed up big time. The sactions alone crippled his army as it wasnt near the strength it was when he invaded Kuwait in 1991.

[Kitsune]

@Trigger
In fact...I do not see how Saddam could have prevented it. He stated not to have any WMDs. The Bush government said:"We know for sure that you have such weapons!! Disarm!!!"
Saddam gave a report...but according to this Iraq had no WMDs. "He lies !" said Bush. Saddam allowed inspections ANYWHERE. ANYTIME. They found nothing. He accepted total air surveillance. Still nothing.

I really do not want to defend Saddam. But he could he EVER have proven that he had no WMDs? How? And assuming he had some, if he had finally admittet to have such weapons the US could have said: "Hah !!! We knew it you liar !!! So finally you disarm...wait a second...these are not all !!! You still have WMDs !!! We know it !!! Disarm or War !!!"
How could he EVER have proven that he had no such weapons ? HOW? Sounds like if he was pretty trapped.

If this war was about getting rid of Saddam...why did Bush not say so from the beginning? Why this WMD pretext?

[Johnnyringo]

I have to say it seems to me that Saddam just kept up the WMD rouse to fool his neighbors into thinking he still had them. As long as he kept the US beleiving he had WMD Isreal would had to have been scared of a chemical attack should desert storm 2 come along. As well as Iran.
If I was George I'd of done the same thing though.... Iraq is better off without that fag.

[oakes]

I don't think this question can be answered with any sort of affirmation. Lacking any substancial evidence, this is really a whole lot of supposition. One might be inclined to think he lied if they didn't trust him, others not if they do trust him. Without any proof, it's kind of moot.

What I do know is that if Saddam wanted to keep his country, he needed to play ball. His WMD capabilities were probably not stockpiles of enriched uranium, but his chemical and biological capabilities were another story. Over this 12-year fiasco, multiple reports from numerous dependable sources affirms that. Before the liberal media decided they didn't want Bush to get any more popular by winning another war, you couldn't stop reading articles about Saddam and his sons' efforts to produce WMDs and gain their ace-in-the-hole, securing themselves against their neighbors and making Israel a little bit more threatened. Chem/Bio weapons are cheap, available, easy to make and most importantly, easy to destroy in mass quantities while still maintaining the technology. We knew this. He knew it. Either he was unwilling to submit to our demands because of arrogance or because he was not able to believe we were gonna go through it. I tend to believe the latter because, like most demagogues, he was ruthless, genocidal, hateful, but never stupid. Over 6 months of troop buildup should have given him a little indication that he better give us what we want or find himself in a hole 8 months later, staring down the barrel of an M16. *sigh* Life is good... Either way, Bush laid out all the cards, gave him plenty of time, and he thought he was calling a bluff. This ain't the 90's though. We don't fight our enemies based on opinion and popularity polls. That's my two cents.

[maw]

sure saddam had wmd's. but he got rid of them long ago. that's what the intel told us except we had no way of validating it. hard to make a leap of faith without validation. fine, but that sword cuts both ways.

saddam was bluffing in a game in which he drastically underestimated the stakes. arabs respect strength, the veiled enigma of wmd's was saddam's fountain of potency. also, he never believed gw would do it.

as for for dubya's true intentions, fecked if i know. but i'm certain of one thing, george w. bush II doesn't give a flying monkey turd about the iraqi people and how saddam treated them. that's not what this is about.

wmd's was the post 9/11 instrument needed to whip up the hysteria among the sheeple to finally have the consensus and popular opinion to mobilize for the invasion/liberation.

the real reasons, no matter how valid, were too subtle and insidious for the general populace to accept as a reason for going to war.

if in general you agree with these assertions, the question becomes what are the real reasons.

show of force in the middle east?
send a message to other nations in the region?
establish a long term foothold?
end once and for all saddams posturing towards isreal?
stabilize oil production in the region?
attempt at triggering a genesis of democracy in the region?
wipe a scab of the world's backside?
pay back?
distract the voting general public and media away from other issues?
hedge yourself in case the bastard really did have wmd's?

i believe that the real reason is in fact a combination of reasons, each of these smaller reasons on its own is not strong enough to justify such drastic actin. however, these reasons when combined cumulatively create a much more compeliing reason than regime change or the spectre of un-validated wmd's. a sort of whole being greater than the sum of it's parts thing.

[oakes]

as for for dubya's true intentions, fecked if i know. but i'm certain of one thing, george w. bush II doesn't give a flying monkey turd about the iraqi people and how saddam treated them. that's not what this is about.


Can't say I disagree here. That's just politics, as usual. Nothing surprising there. Still, the benefit to the Iraqi people was a nice perk.




wmd's was the post 9/11 instrument needed to whip up the hysteria among the sheeple to finally have the consensus and popular opinion to mobilize for the invasion/liberation.

the real reasons, no matter how valid, were too subtle and insidious for the general populace to accept as a reason for going to war.

if in general you agree with these assertions, the question becomes what are the real reasons.

show of force in the middle east?
send a message to other nations in the region?
establish a long term foothold?
end once and for all saddams posturing towards isreal?
stabilize oil production in the region?
attempt at triggering a genesis of democracy in the region?
wipe a scab of the world's backside?
pay back?
distract the voting general public and media away from other issues?
hedge yourself in case the bastard really did have wmd's?


Gotta agree here, too. I just tend to see it with less disdain. We may have gotten in on a technicality, but, at the end of the day, I tend to believe that we used it for the right reasons. In my opinion, Iraq was a problem that should have been fixed in the 90's so it could be turned into an advantage for America and vicariously for the middle east, if possible, though highly improbable. The war benefitted America in more ways than one and that is all I care about, to be honest.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Before I get started here I would like to congradulate everyone for keeping this thread civilized. Thanks. woot :hug:

Maw you are right in many ways.

wmd's was the post 9/11 instrument needed to whip up the hysteria among the sheeple to finally have the consensus and popular opinion to mobilize for the invasion/liberation.

the real reasons, no matter how valid, were too subtle and insidious for the general populace to accept as a reason for going to war.

if in general you agree with these assertions, the question becomes what are the real reasons.

show of force in the middle east?
send a message to other nations in the region?
establish a long term foothold?
end once and for all saddams posturing towards isreal?
stabilize oil production in the region?
attempt at triggering a genesis of democracy in the region?
wipe a scab of the world's backside?
pay back?
distract the voting general public and media away from other issues?
hedge yourself in case the bastard really did have wmd's?


Ok heres my theory, my social studies teacher was a smart man. He told me that the quickest way to get an economy going in rough times was to start a war. Soldiers needs many things, food,water,ammunition,tanks ect ect. Since 9-11 I might add theres 2 ongoing wars for the United States, is it possible that my Socials teacher was right?(start wars to revive the economy)

Now that they did need a reason for the mass amounts of "sheeple"(im sorry thats funny) to actually support the war. (Please reffer to my 4 reasons I posted earlier) Well I have no problems with the war in Iraq, I just think its too easy for them to switch reasons. Like fawk sakes, stick to one reason please. And No dont try to fool us by saying this is all apart the war on terrorism because it isnt (which most Americans do think it is).
Its all this "terrorist/insurgent" talk that goes on around Iraq that confuse's them, I dont blame them I get confused at times myself.

My point to this is simple, if your going to start a war please stick to your reason of going to war and stand by it. Dont change it whenever its nessecary at the time to sway public opinion in your favor. Then the "sheeple" might start asking questions....remember it is the sheeple that decide your fate when it comes to this upcoming vote.

thanks
the bastardchild

[oakes]

@ ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð

I'm not quite certain what you're trying to prove. The question was, "did Bush lie?" and whether you want to believe that or not is probably most dependant of whether or not you support the president. Don't get me wrong, the administration is definitely steering away from the WMD aspect until we have something substancial. I think it is quite obvious that when you lack the physical evidence to conclusively prove a point at the moment, you focus on something else. That's not news. If the motive of this question is to assert that the war was invented simply for the purpose of stimulating a depressed economy, I say you should probably be able to substansiate a claim like that with hard evidence instead of academic assertions and supposition. Maw had some good motives which I believe were that I believe were all considered when the decision to hold Iraq to account was made, but don't let assumtions about Bush lead you to subscribe to conspiracy theories that don't add up. The belief should be based on by facts, not the other way around.

[budanski]

We didnt go to war because we thought Saddam had WMD. We went to war because Saddam failed to prove he didnt have em.

So are we discussing this again? :roll:

[Zach R.]

Before I get started here I would like to congradulate everyone for keeping this thread civilized. Thanks. woot :hug:

Maw you are right in many ways.

wmd's was the post 9/11 instrument needed to whip up the hysteria among the sheeple to finally have the consensus and popular opinion to mobilize for the invasion/liberation.

the real reasons, no matter how valid, were too subtle and insidious for the general populace to accept as a reason for going to war.

if in general you agree with these assertions, the question becomes what are the real reasons.

show of force in the middle east?
send a message to other nations in the region?
establish a long term foothold?
end once and for all saddams posturing towards isreal?
stabilize oil production in the region?
attempt at triggering a genesis of democracy in the region?
wipe a scab of the world's backside?
pay back?
distract the voting general public and media away from other issues?
hedge yourself in case the bastard really did have wmd's?


Ok heres my theory, my social studies teacher was a smart man. He told me that the quickest way to get an economy going in rough times was to start a war. Soldiers needs many things, food,water,ammunition,tanks ect ect. Since 9-11 I might add theres 2 ongoing wars for the United States, is it possible that my Socials teacher was right?(start wars to revive the economy)

Now that they did need a reason for the mass amounts of "sheeple"(im sorry thats funny) to actually support the war. (Please reffer to my 4 reasons I posted earlier) Well I have no problems with the war in Iraq, I just think its too easy for them to switch reasons. Like fawk sakes, stick to one reason please. And No dont try to fool us by saying this is all apart the war on terrorism because it isnt (which most Americans do think it is).
Its all this "terrorist/insurgent" talk that goes on around Iraq that confuse's them, I dont blame them I get confused at times myself.

My point to this is simple, if your going to start a war please stick to your reason of going to war and stand by it. Dont change it whenever its nessecary at the time to sway public opinion in your favor. Then the "sheeple" might start asking questions....remember it is the sheeple that decide your fate when it comes to this upcoming vote.

thanks
the bastardchild

Dude, the reason the economy was down was because of 9/11. We invaded A-stan because that rat-bastard bin Laden decided to piss us off by killing 3,185 innocent Americans. As for Saddam, he has WMD's. Or, well, he used to, they belong to the desert now. If we can find 28 Mig-21F's buried 67' underneith a sand-dune, I'm sure he's got those FROG-7's somewhere out there.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

I think it is quite obvious that when you lack the physical evidence to conclusively prove a point at the moment, you focus on something else. That's not news. If the motive of this question is to assert that the war was invented simply for the purpose of stimulating a depressed economy, I say you should probably be able to substansiate a claim like that with hard evidence instead of academic assertions and supposition.

I was just wondering if the theory would stand to be true in this case, it is obvious there is no real evidence to prove it but I decided to post the theory to see what others think. P.s. good post oakes.




Dude, the reason the economy was down was because of 9/11.
If I remeber correctly the economy wasnt doing so sweet before 9-11, certainly 9-11 didnt help and we as Canadians at the time were pretty much in the same boat as you guys.

As for Saddam, he has WMD's. Or, well, he used to, they belong to the desert now. If we can find 28 Mig-21F's buried 67' underneith a sand-dune, I'm sure he's got those FROG-7's somewhere out there.
Good point but we knew obviously he was going to try to hide them or destroy them. There is trailers that could be use'd to create or destroy them but if they were use'd they were very well cleaned as they did find no traces of WMD. The WMD could be anywere, but knowing he was going to not leave it laying around should the have based the reason to go to war around WMD?

So did Mr Bush lie? I'm not in the situation to prove it nor do I have the evidence to prove it. In the end its up to the American voters to decide.

[Kitsune]

But again the question:

How could Saddam have proven that he had no WMD? How could anyone?

Its somewhat like this: Somebody says:"I believe there is a Monster in Loch Ness. I know for sure. Countless people here have said they have seen it." How can you prove that there isn't? "You can't see it because it is underwater. It is hiding. The lake is big and murky after all." So you take a Submarine and search the whole lake. But you do not find anything. Proof? No ! "The monster is evading you, its always at the other side of the lake!" What can you do? Finally you pump all the water out of the lake...and...nothing. But our believer says:" No proof. It fled during a moonless night. Or it died a few days ago and the body dissolved completely. But it was there. Iknow."

Sorry about this monster annalogy...its about WMDs of course. They do exist. So in fact we have here the perfect pretext for war. And it always works. Anyone can do it. "You have WMDs. You are a threat. I have to disarm you!" - "No I have no such weapons!" - "Liar !!! You have them hidden away. Disarm !!!" Since it is pretty hard to proof what you DON'T have, the accused one is trapped.
Next time China or Russia use that one.

Well, one might think that guilt must be proven by the accuser. You may watch him. Search his house...if he resists you can do something. But if not...and you still don't find anything, the cops have to let him go. That is the way of any free state. But not with nations on an international level. Not anymore.

First Bush claimed to have "undeniable proof" about the existence of these weapons. But all is vague and unsubstantial. And after the war? What exactly was this "proof"? The clear and present danger to the region, let alone the US? "We cannot wait until proof faces us in form of a mushroom shaped cloud" said Bush. But the only documents I have heard from so far...the ones about the Iraq-Niger Uranium Deal... were frauds...or better jokes. (They are so obviously forged that it is inconceivable that anyone believed in them for a minute). What I have heard Bush is now stepping back from this WMD thing. "We brought freedom to the Iraqi people!" - "WMDs?" - "Well we will find them someday." / "Iraq is so big...we will probably never find them." / "Hussein was interested in these weapons...therefore he was a threat." / "History will prove me right"...Is this really enough?

Do you think a President should be honest to his people? Do you still think GWB is a honest man?

:|

[Armour recon]

THE BASTARD JUST WANTED THE OIL! :D

Joking... It wasn't the main reason but VERY important thought.

[Skaman]

@Trigger
In fact...I do not see how Saddam could have prevented it. He stated not to have any WMDs. The Bush government said:"We know for sure that you have such weapons!! Disarm!!!"
Saddam gave a report...but according to this Iraq had no WMDs. "He lies !" said Bush. Saddam allowed inspections ANYWHERE. ANYTIME. They found nothing. He accepted total air surveillance. Still nothing.

I really do not want to defend Saddam. But he could he EVER have proven that he had no WMDs? How? And assuming he had some, if he had finally admittet to have such weapons the US could have said: "Hah !!! We knew it you liar !!! So finally you disarm...wait a second...these are not all !!! You still have WMDs !!! We know it !!! Disarm or War !!!"
How could he EVER have proven that he had no such weapons ? HOW? Sounds like if he was pretty trapped.

If this war was about getting rid of Saddam...why did Bush not say so from the beginning? Why this WMD pretext?


catch22-war for not letting inspectors in, yet not having them
-war for having 'wmd'

Screwed if he has them, screwed if he does not


There never was an alternative other than war. Bush was never bent on resolve.

[Deuterium]

@Trigger
In fact...I do not see how Saddam could have prevented it. He stated not to have any WMDs. The Bush government said:"We know for sure that you have such weapons!! Disarm!!!"
Saddam gave a report...but according to this Iraq had no WMDs. "He lies !" said Bush. Saddam allowed inspections ANYWHERE. ANYTIME. They found nothing. He accepted total air surveillance. Still nothing.

I really do not want to defend Saddam. But he could he EVER have proven that he had no WMDs? How? And assuming he had some, if he had finally admittet to have such weapons the US could have said: "Hah !!! We knew it you liar !!! So finally you disarm...wait a second...these are not all !!! You still have WMDs !!! We know it !!! Disarm or War !!!"
How could he EVER have proven that he had no such weapons ? HOW? Sounds like if he was pretty trapped.

If this war was about getting rid of Saddam...why did Bush not say so from the beginning? Why this WMD pretext?


catch22-war for not letting inspectors in, yet not having them
-war for having 'wmd'

Screwed if he has them, screwed if he does not


There never was an alternative other than war. Bush was never bent on resolve.


Whoahhh...... Stop making sense!!!! Been eating a little mad-cow for christmas my friend?? I liked the old Ducy better.

[Armour recon]

But again the question:

How could Saddam have proven that he had no WMD? How could anyone?

Its somewhat like this: Somebody says:"I believe there is a Monster in Loch Ness. I know for sure. Countless people here have said they have seen it." How can you prove that there isn't? "You can't see it because it is underwater. It is hiding. The lake is big and murky after all." So you take a Submarine and search the whole lake. But you do not find anything. Proof? No ! "The monster is evading you, its always at the other side of the lake!" What can you do? Finally you pump all the water out of the lake...and...nothing. But our believer says:" No proof. It fled during a moonless night. Or it died a few days ago and the body dissolved completely. But it was there. Iknow."

Sorry about this monster annalogy...its about WMDs of course. They do exist. So in fact we have here the perfect pretext for war. And it always works. Anyone can do it. "You have WMDs. You are a threat. I have to disarm you!" - "No I have no such weapons!" - "Liar !!! You have them hidden away. Disarm !!!" Since it is pretty hard to proof what you DON'T have, the accused one is trapped.
Next time China or Russia use that one.

Well, one might think that guilt must be proven by the accuser. You may watch him. Search his house...if he resists you can do something. But if not...and you still don't find anything, the cops have to let him go. That is the way of any free state. But not with nations on an international level. Not anymore.

First Bush claimed to have "undeniable proof" about the existence of these weapons. But all is vague and unsubstantial. And after the war? What exactly was this "proof"? The clear and present danger to the region, let alone the US? "We cannot wait until proof faces us in form of a mushroom shaped cloud" said Bush. But the only documents I have heard from so far...the ones about the Iraq-Niger Uranium Deal... were frauds...or better jokes. (They are so obviously forged that it is inconceivable that anyone believed in them for a minute). What I have heard Bush is now stepping back from this WMD thing. "We brought freedom to the Iraqi people!" - "WMDs?" - "Well we will find them someday." / "Iraq is so big...we will probably never find them." / "Hussein was interested in these weapons...therefore he was a threat." / "History will prove me right"...Is this really enough?

Do you think a President should be honest to his people? Do you still think GWB is a honest man?

:|


That's good text!

[budanski]

Kitsune:

In 1998, just before the U.N. weapons inspectors were kicked out, Saddam admitted he had:

• At least 3.9 tons of deadly VX nerve gas, along with 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.
• 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.
• 8,500 liters of anthrax.
• 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.
• 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.
• 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.
• 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.
• 25 missile warheads containing germ agents, including anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum.

Towards the run up to Gulf War 2, these weapons were still unaccounted for, today. No documents of them "destroyed" after years of thumbing their noses to their part of ceasefire agreement. Yes the inspectors were allowed back in, but only when the hundred of thousands of U.S. troops were about to kick the door down.

[Kitsune]

@Budanski:

Do You really think the US government would have accepted a document that reads: "The 3.9 tons of VX gas have been destroyed" (signed Saddam Hussein) as proof?

hmmm.... ;)

[Va_Dinger]

No he didn't lie. He based his conclusions on the Intel that was provided to him.

You don't really beleive that pile of horse crap do you?

[budanski]

@Budanski:

Do You really think the US government would have accepted a document that reads: "The 3.9 tons of VX gas have been destroyed" (signed Saddam Hussein) as proof?

hmmm.... ;)

Why the heck not? It worked for Libya. ;)

Seriously, to justify the attack on Iraq, one needs to know the following: Iraq signed a ceasefire agreement, in which the government was allowed to continue to exist if they complied with several terms. These terms included documentation and presentation of all WMDs to an inspection team for verified destruction. Saddam Hussein failed to provide full disclosure of his WMD programs to the UN weapons inspectors. No serious nation, nor the U.N., nor even Hans Blix has claimed that Iraq complied with this.

Every serious government has conceded or stated that Iraq was seeking to hide and deceive in regards its compliance.

Further, Iraq had admitted to large quantities of WMDs, and had not turned them over for verified destruction as I stated in my earlier post.

By the way, in regards the chemical and especially biological warfare materials, have you calculated the volume required to store such materials? As example, a standard 10' x 12' bedroom is sufficient to hold 27,000 liters. How many chem or bio warheads is that - and we've found a smattering of specialized warheads suitable for such use. We've also found quite a number of "dual use" facilities, designed in an odd manner so that they can produce mundane things other than bio or chem agents, but could clearly be converted.


"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." S - 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 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated 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, December 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 mandated 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

"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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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

"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

"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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons 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

"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." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without 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 ****e to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his 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

It seems like everyone in Washington D.C. is a liar. :|
Bush is only guilty of following through with his ultimatum. Its funny one minute they're calling Bush dumb, the next they're claiming that he pulled off a brilliant con job by lying about Iraq's WMDs.



No he didn't lie. He based his conclusions on the Intel that was provided to him.

You don't really beleive that pile of horse crap do you?

Most intel is usually ambiguous. The president will always have to choose one of many possible political interpretations of the intel. The president will have to use his judgment not only as to whether or not a certain weapons system (for example) exists or has the capabilities indicated by some intel; he will also have to make a political judgement in the best interests of the country as to whether or not it will be used.

Almost all judgments of intel are "political" in the sense that you must understand the opponents intent, and that is the hardest thing to judge accurately. Clinton, for his own selfish political reasons chose to ignore growing danger signs. Bush decided that Hussein's continued leadership of Iraq, given his intransigence over inspections and other terms of the '91 ceasefire, was too great a threat to the US.

[Kitsune]

@Budanski:

Thats a compelling collection of quotations you got there. If I am not mistaken those from the year 1998 were made to justify "Desert Fox". And those from autumn 2002...well actually most of these politicians just made these statements in the wake of Mr.Bush...people who believed this "we have evidence"-thing. In fact some of them (T. Kennedy for example) later stepped back from what they have said. What this "undeniable evidence" we still do not know.

Is Mr Bush dumb? Well, actually I think he is not too brilliant. But as Prsident of the USA he is not alone. And people like Cheney, Rice or Wolfowitz ARE clever.

But this superclever con job thing...that is exactly my problem. I think:

1) We were all pretty much ****ed by Mr. Bush. The whole world, but especially the American people.

2) But there was NOTHING superclever about it. In fact it was downright obvious. Sorry...but I think that only the US government gets away with something like this. No one else would have. The reason why this thing worked is not compelling cleverness...but the compelling power of the one and only superpower on the planet. That makes the people fall in line. (By the way...do you think that the governments of Spain, Poland or even Great Britain would have supported Bush, against the majority of their population, if the United States were some middle class nation? Isn't it possible that their main motive is to better their standing with the US....and not so much the "compelling evidence" you presented? p-) )

[Seiyuuki]

1) We were all pretty much f*** by Mr. Bush. The whole world, but especially the American people.

Please, foreigners need to stop speaking for Americans. Hmmm...you also need to mention the world got **** some more when Libya did what they did, damn this freaking "War on Terrorism" ****.


2) But there was NOTHING superclever about it. In fact it was downright obvious. Sorry...but I think that only the US government gets away with something like this. No one else would have. The reason why this thing worked is not compelling cleverness...but the compelling power of the one and only superpower on the planet. That makes the people fall in line. (By the way...do you think that the governments of Spain, Poland or even Great Britain would have supported Bush, against the majority of their population, if the United States were some middle class nation? Isn't it possible that their main motive is to better their standing with the US....and not so much the "compelling evidence" you presented? p-) )

I'll bet you're just on the edge of your seat for this EU thing to work and polarize the world once more. ;)

[Kitsune]

Yeah...those were two pretty enigmatic remarks, seiyuuki. I will have to meditate about them. Perhaps I find wisdom in those words.

:|

[oakes]

@ Kitsune

I find it hard to submit to the conspiracy theory angle because it is an unproven theory that is based on and supported by other unproven theories. Give me some hard evidence to look at. Until then, it's hard to take seriously. Budanski presented a shopping list of quotes and facts stating or referring to the affirmation of the existence of WMD's in Iraq. I've yet to see anything substancial proving otherwise coming from the other camp. If your theory is true, there are facts out there that proves it.
Let me see them.


We were all pretty much f*** by Mr. Bush. The whole world, but especially the American people.

How so? I'm not being sarcastic. If you could just clarify.

[He219]

kitsune, I think you may be confusing claims made....


SUNDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2003 10:55:57 PM

LONDON: The British government has confirmed that MI6 had organised Operation Mass Appeal, a campaign to plant stories in the media about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

The revelation will create embarrassing questions for Tony Blair in the run-up to the publication of the report by Lord Hutton into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly , the government weapons expert.

A senior official admitted that MI6 had been at the heart of a campaign launched in the late 1990s to spread information about Saddam's development of nerve agents and other weapons, but denied that it had planted misinformation.

"There were things about Saddam's regime and his weapons that the public needed to know," said the official.

The admission followed claims by Scott Ritter, a former US marine who led 14 inspection missions in Iraq, who said that MI6 had recruited him in 1997 to help with the propaganda effort.

He described meetings where the senior officer and at least two other MI6 staff had discussed ways to manipulate intelligence material.

"The aim was to convince the public that Iraq was a far greater threat than it actually was," Ritter said last week.

He said there was evidence that MI6 continued to use similar propaganda tactics up to the invasion of Iraq earlier this year.

"Stories ran in the media about secret underground facilities in Iraq and ongoing programmes to produce weapons of mass destruction," said Ritter.

"They were sourced to western intelligence and all of them were garbage." Kelly, himself a former United Nations weapons inspector and colleague of Ritter, might also have been used by MI6 to pass information to journalists.

"Kelly was a known and government-approved conduit with the media," said Ritter.

Sunday Times, London


Related story:

LONDON (*******) - Paul Bremer, the top U.S. man in Iraq, contradicted Britain's Tony Blair on Sunday when he rejected reports that inspectors had found a network of laboratories that could be used to produce banned weapons.

In a pre-Christmas broadcast on the British Forces Broadcasting Service, the British prime minister said the Iraq Survey Group had already found "massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories."

Asked on ITV's Dimbleby program about those words, the U.S. administrator for Iraq, apparently unaware they came from Blair, was dismissive.

"It sounds like a bit of a red herring to me. It sounds like somebody who doesn't agree with the policy, sets up a red herring and then knocks it down," he said.

When it was pointed out that it was Blair who had publicized those claims, Bremer appeared to row back a little. "There is a lot of evidence that has been made public," he said.

A spokeswoman in Blair's Downing Street office said the prime minister had been referring to material published in the weapons inspection group's interim report earlier this year.

The existence, or otherwise, of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq remains a huge issue for Blair despite Saddam Hussein's capture earlier this month.

Blair told skeptical Britons war on Iraq was necessary because of the threat posed by its banned weapons. Nine months after Saddam was toppled, not one of the weapons he claimed the Iraqi leader had primed for use has been found.

In the meantime, his public trust ratings have plunged and anti-war members of his ruling Labour Party are aghast. Many are now prepared to oppose their leader on all sorts of issues, posing a real threat to Blair's authority.

A survey released on Sunday labeled Blair Britain's least trustworthy politician. The poll for Web Site CyberBritain.com found almost 4,000 of over 13,000 people canvassed in the run-up to Christmas opted for the prime minister.

Next month, Blair faces a crucial vote on his controversial plans to make students pay more for university education. Continued (http://www.*******.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=Y5N20TEE0DHSWCRBAEKSFFA?type=topNews&storyID=4050235&pageNumber=1)



As yet (I've said it before) it is too early to pass judgement......