Bush and Officials Lied leading up to Iraq war

[jillian]

Its nice to see liberal/Dimocratic ass getting kicked all over this board for the past couple of weeks.....
won't make any difference...they run now..but they'll be back with the some old lies again and again....
then ya school 'em
then they disappear
then they repeat like nothing happened....
'
Damn its fun....tiresome, but fun...

I hear they have meds for delusions, baby... perhaps it's time for you to seek some out.

 

[JimH52]

And I'm sure that's as "honest" a statement as the last one that got debunked.

Source?[/QUOTENow let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.]
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

By the way, it wasn't debunked, he made contradictary votes period and you know it.

Nothing in that statement says that Saddam "had" chemical and biological weapons. The statement is true. He did all of those things.

It was bush and DICK who claimed he "had" the weapons. You must be taking writing lessons from an administration official. You sure know how to abuse the truth.

 

[DeadCanDance]

In his 2002 speech in Chicago Obama stated that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop nuclear weapons. So evidently he was wrong too. But he stated with those facts that he wouldn't have gone to war against Saddam.

That Obama speech is astonishing. Probably the best anti-war speech ever given by a politician. Thanks for reminding me.

BARAK OBAMA: I don’t oppose all wars.....What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. (Wow, Obama is spot on here, and shows excellent judgement. He correctly predicted everything that would happen, while Neocon armchair warriors were telling us we'd be treated as liberators)

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

 

[jillian]

Nothing in that statement says that Saddam "had" chemical and biological weapons. The statement is true. He did all of those things.

It was bush and DICK who claimed he "had" the weapons. You must be taking writing lessons from an administration official. You sure know how to abuse the truth.

was jreeves who said tha... not moi.

 

[jreeves]

Nothing in that statement says that Saddam "had" chemical and biological weapons. The statement is true. He did all of those things.

It was bush and DICK who claimed he "had" the weapons. You must be taking writing lessons from an administration official. You sure know how to abuse the truth.

Developed=Had...

 

[jreeves]

That Obama speech is astonishing. Probably the best anti-war speech ever given by a politician. Thanks for reminding me.

It's not when you make the assumptions he made that speech. That he had or "developed" biological and chemical weapons and coveted nuclear weapons. When is this country suppose to go to war then, when someone uses those weapons or invades their neighbors, oh wait Saddam did both.

 

[DeadCanDance]

It's not when you make the assumptions he made that speech. That he had or "developed" biological and chemical weapons and coveted nuclear weapons. When is this country suppose to go to war then, when someone uses those weapons or invades their neighbors, oh wait Saddam did both.

LOL

Weak, very weak.

Please tell me we didn't invade iraq, because saddam used mustard gas on the iranian army. We cheered him on and supported his invasion of Iran, and remained his ally throughout that war.

When he gassed the kurds, he was punished. NATO and the UN created a defact autonomous state in kurdistan, the kurdish people were protected by a no-fly zone, and NATO aircraft would shoot down any iraq plane or helicopter than encroached on kurdish territory. In short, Saddam "lost" a huge chunk of his country.

Now, the soviets also supposedly used chemical weapons on the afghans in the afghanistan war of the 1980s. Did reagan view that as a reason to invade the soviet union?

 

[jreeves]

LOL

Weak, very weak.

Please tell me we didn't invade iraq, because saddam used mustard gas on the iranian army. We cheered him on and supported his invasion of Iran, and remained his ally throughout that war.

When he gassed the kurds, he was punished. NATO and the UN created a defact autonomous state in kurdistan, the kurdish people were protected by a no-fly zone, and NATO aircraft would shoot down any iraq plane or helicopter than encroached on kurdish territory. In short, Saddam "lost" a huge chunk of his country.

Now, the soviets also supposedly used chemical weapons on the afghans in the afghanistan war of the 1980s. Did reagan view that as a reason to invade the soviet union?

We didn't support his invasion of Kuwait, when Iraqi Revolutionary guard raped and pillaged the country without provaction. We didn't support him lobbing Scud missles into Israel without any provaction from Israel. We didn't support killing his own people that happened not to belong to the Bath party. My friend you are delusionary. Can't accept the facts that Saddam was a butcher, the democratic front-runner said it not me.

 

[jreeves]

LOL

Weak, very weak.

Please tell me we didn't invade iraq, because saddam used mustard gas on the iranian army. We cheered him on and supported his invasion of Iran, and remained his ally throughout that war.

When he gassed the kurds, he was punished. NATO and the UN created a defact autonomous state in kurdistan, the kurdish people were protected by a no-fly zone, and NATO aircraft would shoot down any iraq plane or helicopter than encroached on kurdish territory. In short, Saddam "lost" a huge chunk of his country.

Now, the soviets also supposedly used chemical weapons on the afghans in the afghanistan war of the 1980s. Did reagan view that as a reason to invade the soviet union?

We didn't invade the Soviet Union but we did support the afgans in the war. Hence the reason the Soviet Union lost the war.

 

[jillian]

We didn't support his invasion of Kuwait, when Iraqi Revolutionary guard raped and pillaged the country without provaction. We didn't support him lobbing Scud missles into Israel without any provaction from Israel. We didn't support killing his own people that happened not to belong to the Bath party. My friend you are delusionary. Can't accept the facts that Saddam was a butcher, the democratic front-runner said it not me.

Kuwait -- past history... well before we invaded.

Israel getting SCUDS??? We made them not respond and did nothing about it. So, your point?

Damn, I do wish you'd get some facts behind you.

 

[DeadCanDance]

We didn't invade the Soviet Union but we did support the afgans in the war. Hence the reason the Soviet Union lost the war.

And we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because of their treatment of the Kurds two decades ago.

Until Bush lied us into war, we were doing what Reagan did, in afghanistan. We supported the kurds, armed them, and bascially forced Saddam to surrender kurdistan to the local kurdish government. The kurds were protected by us, and Saddam's army and air force was effectively tossed out of the kurdish provinces. He, in effect, lost his kurdish provinces.

 

[jreeves]

LOL

Weak, very weak.

Please tell me we didn't invade iraq, because saddam used mustard gas on the iranian army. We cheered him on and supported his invasion of Iran, and remained his ally throughout that war.

When he gassed the kurds, he was punished. NATO and the UN created a defact autonomous state in kurdistan, the kurdish people were protected by a no-fly zone, and NATO aircraft would shoot down any iraq plane or helicopter than encroached on kurdish territory. In short, Saddam "lost" a huge chunk of his country.

Now, the soviets also supposedly used chemical weapons on the afghans in the afghanistan war of the 1980s. Did reagan view that as a reason to invade the soviet union?

One more misstatement in your post I would like to clarify the no fly zones in Iraq were a result of the first Gulf War not his gassing of the Iranians.

 

[jreeves]

Kuwait -- past history... well before we invaded.

Israel getting SCUDS??? We made them not respond and did nothing about it. So, your point?

Damn, I do wish you'd get some facts behind you.

Saddam defied UN resolutions regarding WMD's. With his history, we couldn't chance him using those WMDs. Hence past history does play a role. Are you now disputing that he didn't defy UN resolutions?

 

[mattskramer]

In his 2002 speech in Chicago Obama stated that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop nuclear weapons. So evidently he was wrong too. But he stated with those facts that he wouldn't have gone to war against Saddam.

Yes. Evidently he was wrong too. It seemed like he had a cool head about it. On the other hand, we see Hillary. Has she ever said that she was “wrong”? She dances around the word. She said that if she had known then what she knows now… but it seems like she refuses to say that she was wrong. That is one big thing that I don’t like about Hillary.

 

[jreeves]

Saddam defied UN resolutions regarding WMD's. With his history, we couldn't chance him using those WMDs. Hence past history does play a role. Are you now disputing that he didn't defy UN resolutions?

The US called on Israel to show restraint, because we didn't want a regional conflict. Come on are you now saying we wanted Saddam to lob those Scuds in Israel, your the one who needs to get their facts straight.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Shame on Democrats for trusting Bush and the intelligence. Yet, as I said before, Bush pushed the “red button”. The person who makes such a decision has responsibility to make absolutely sure that what he has is true irrefutable evidence. He should have gotten second and third and fourth and fifth and sixth opinions. He should have considered the possibility that Saddam did not have WMD – think about it form both sides. No. Failed intelligence did not send American soldiers into Iraq. Bush sent American soldiers into Iraq.

Ugh.... WMD was only an ANCILLARY reason for going into Iraq. When will people get over that. It's IRRELEVANT anyway. We are there, period. We will be there for most of the rest of your life, regardless of who is in control of Congress or the White House. Why? Because that area of the world is VITAL to US and all Western civilization and CANNOT be allowed to be controlled by a pack of insane Islamic religious nuts.

Got that? Good.

 

[mattskramer]

Saddam defied UN resolutions regarding WMD's. With his history, we couldn't chance him using those WMDs. Hence past history does play a role. Are you now disputing that he didn't defy UN resolutions?

I think that if Iraq broke UN resolutions, then it was the UN’s place to make the call – not the USA place to act on behalf of the UN. Even Kofi Annan said that the Iraq war was illegal (while not calling for a prosecution of the USA). I’m still thinking about how the UN resolutions supposedly authorize us to go to war. I think that the intent was for a final vote to take place and for a formal UN declaration of war – not for the US to lead the way in declaring war against Iraq when and if we choose to do so (with a tiny bit of help from a few other nations).

 

[mattskramer]

Ugh.... WMD was only an ANCILLARY reason for going into Iraq. When will people get over that. It's IRRELEVANT anyway. We are there, period. We will be there for most of the rest of your life, regardless of who is in control of Congress or the White House. Why? Because that area of the world is VITAL to US and all Western civilization and CANNOT be allowed to be controlled by a pack of insane Islamic religious nuts.

Got that? Good.

I know that the phony WMD notion was only one of several erroneous and weak reasons for going onto Iraq. I never said that it was the only reason. It is not irrelevant in so much as we learn from our mistakes and the next leader become more careful. We will probably be there for a long time. In my opinion, we should not be there for a long time. I doubt that the area is vital to the USA, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume that it is. I’m poor. My next door neighbor has fine things in his home. I could invade it, take a lot of his stuff and use it for myself. His resources are vital to my success. Also, I don’t trust him. He broke a promise to me. He looks at me funny. I guess those things justify my taking things from him. America is far from being controlled by insane Islamic religious nuts. Whether or not we stay in Iraq will have no bearing on whether or not Islamic nuts will control America.

Got that? Good.

 

[jreeves]

I think that if Iraq broke UN resolutions, then it was the UN’s place to make the call – not the USA place to act on behalf of the UN. Even Kofi Annan said that the Iraq war was illegal (while not calling for a prosecution of the USA). I’m still thinking about how the UN resolutions supposedly authorize us to go to war. I think that the intent was for a final vote to take place and for a formal UN declaration of war – not for the US to lead the way in declaring war against Iraq when and if we choose to do so (with a tiny bit of help from a few other nations).

When did the UN become the authority on protecting U.S. interests? As you probably remember the reason the US didn't seek a UN resolution for force, was because of Russia and China. When has the UN ever taken pre-emptive action anyway? I never remember a war when the first people in the warzone had on blue UN helmets, maybe I'm forgetting if I am please remind me.

 

[jreeves]

I know that the phony WMD notion was only one of several erroneous and weak reasons for going onto Iraq. I never said that it was the only reason. It is not irrelevant in so much as we learn from our mistakes and the next leader become more careful. We will probably be there for a long time. In my opinion, we should not be there for a long time. I doubt that the area is vital to the USA, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume that it is. I’m poor. My next door neighbor has fine things in his home. I could invade it, take a lot of his stuff and use it for myself. His resources are vital to my success. Also, I don’t trust him. He broke a promise to me. He looks at me funny. I guess those things justify my taking things from him. America is far from being controlled by insane Islamic religious nuts. Whether or not we stay in Iraq will have no bearing on whether or not Islamic nuts will control America.

Got that? Good.

What does your neighbor have to do with Iraq......that's called a false premise.