Bush's Lies Caused The Iraq War

[Camp]

Bush punished anyone who tried to tell the truth. His thug Richard Armitage who signed the PNAC plan to invade Iraq before 9/11/2001 is the one who outed Valerie Plame because her husband criticized the Bush administration's use of pre-Iraq war intelligence about "Yellowcake Uranium".

Armitage claimed that his disclosure to Novak of Plame's identity was offhand and that he "didn't put any big import on it," denying that he had deliberately outed Plame in an effort to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a critic of the Bush administration's use of pre-Iraq war intelligence. According to the Associated Press, Armitage has also claimed that he did not know Plame was covert, and that "he assumed Plame's job was not a secret because it was included in a State Department memo." In his CBS News interview, Armitage acknowledged that the document was classified. According to a CBS News online article about the interview: "Armitage adds that while the document was classified, 'it doesn't mean that every sentence in the document is classified. I had never seen a covered agent's name in any memo in, I think, 28 years of government,' he says."

However, the paragraph from that 2003 memo mentioning Plame and her status as a CIA operative was reportedly marked "S" for secret. According to the New York Sun, a declassified copy of the memo, obtained by that newspaper, showed that she was identified specifically as a "CIA WMD manager." David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation and co-author of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, the book that originally identified Armitage as Novak's source, revealed in a September 6 article for The Nation Plame's role at the CIA -- she was director of operations for the Joint Task Force on Iraq, a unit within the CIA's clandestine service responsible for investigating pre-war claims regarding Iraq's alleged WMD programs.

Given Plame's status within the CIA, Armitage's presumed sophistication on matters of intelligence and foreign policy, and Armitage's acknowledgment that he read the memo in which her identity is contained within a paragraph marked secret, it seems highly implausible that Armitage was not aware that Plame's identity was sensitive information. Plame and Wilson made this case in the civil suit they filed against White House senior adviser Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, which has since been updated to include Armitage.

Armitage- Part I: The Early Years & the Golden Triangle

 

[Theowl32]

Huh and with all of that so called conclusive proof, Obama never saw fit to conduct an independent investigation for the sake of justice for the millions Bush and Cheney killed for oil.

Not even by the UN.

Makes you wonder why liberals love Obama so much considering he expanded one of the so called ilegal wars, attempted to remain in the other illegal war in Iraq, killed the mythical terrorists that liberals said did not exist with nonstop drone attacks and killed Osama and said al Qaeda was on the run.

What has actually been proven is liberals will believe any bullshit that accuses anything of the republicans and will feign outrage only when a republican takes on any military action.

We already know of at least one liberal who believes the only reason Obama did not conduct an investigation of Bush was because he did not want to drag the nation through the mud. Yeah, Bush to the liberals is as guilty as hitler (lol) and they have no problem with Obama just letting it go for the sake of the nation.

Lol at liberals.

 

[KissMy]

Bush got over 8,300 Americans killed on his watch. Obama has only 1926 so far.

But Obama has killed 10 times more Al Qaeda terrorist in his first term than Bush did in 8 years, with a 80% lower rate of collateral damage civilians killed.

 

[Theowl32]

Bush got over 8,300 Americans killed on his watch. Obama has only 1926 so far.

But Obama has killed 10 times more Al Qaeda terrorist in his first term than Bush did in 8 years, with a 80% lower rate of collateral damage civilians killed.

I thought al Qaeda was innocent and Bush and Cheney planned 911 for oil.

So, you are in support of the drone attacks? I am too. Go figure, we agree.

 

[Billo_Really]

I thought al Qaeda was innocent and Bush and Cheney planned 911 for oil.

So, you are in support of the drone attacks? I am too. Go figure, we agree.

Well, I don't.

Drone strikes is American terrorism.

 

[initforme]

I don't really know if Saddam had WMDs or not. I always wondered how we went from 9-11 and those terrorists to going into Iraq. Were the terrorists who hijacked the planes from Iraq? Also, why isn't the Iraqi army taking care of business over there? If they want their country then fight for it. Hard to fathom.

 

[Theowl32]

I thought al Qaeda was innocent and Bush and Cheney planned 911 for oil.

So, you are in support of the drone attacks? I am too. Go figure, we agree.

Well, I don't.

Drone strikes is American terrorism.

Keep on thinking you know more than those who are privy to all of the intel that we are not privy to.

I will be waiting for someone to explain to me why Obama did not investigate Bush (keep in mind you all say he is as guilty as hitler, which is pathetic but that is what you believe) expanded the war in Afghanistan, tried to keep the troops in Iraq and killed mythical terrorists with drones.

How is it again that you all don't feel like pawns when the democrats tell you one thing and do another......blatantly? Do you all really believe they care so much about the poor or are they more interested in getting votes from the poor ? Why can't you all see the real reasons they play on your heart strings while they blame white rich people and republicans as they expand those on food stamps and by doing that increase their constituency?

 

[BlindBoo]

I thought al Qaeda was innocent and Bush and Cheney planned 911 for oil.

So, you are in support of the drone attacks? I am too. Go figure, we agree.

Well, I don't.

Drone strikes is American terrorism.

Doesn't it depend on the target? I agree random drone strikes are. Follow up strikes on first-responders are pretty terrible too.

 

[Slyhunter]

I don't really know if Saddam had WMDs or not. I always wondered how we went from 9-11 and those terrorists to going into Iraq. Were the terrorists who hijacked the planes from Iraq? Also, why isn't the Iraqi army taking care of business over there? If they want their country then fight for it. Hard to fathom.

How many times do I have to repeat this? What 9/11 taught us is we can't just sit around and do nothing until they hit our shores. We must be proactive in our approach. So instead of waiting for Saddam to act we stopped him before he caused something just as bad as 9/11.

 

[Billo_Really]

How many times do I have to repeat this? What 9/11 taught us is we can't just sit around and do nothing until they hit our shores. We must be proactive in our approach. So instead of waiting for Saddam to act we stopped him before he caused something just as bad as 9/11.

Can you be anymore un-American?

No one should be punished for a crime they didn't commit.

 

[KissMy]

I don't really know if Saddam had WMDs or not. I always wondered how we went from 9-11 and those terrorists to going into Iraq. Were the terrorists who hijacked the planes from Iraq? Also, why isn't the Iraqi army taking care of business over there? If they want their country then fight for it. Hard to fathom.

How many times do I have to repeat this? What 9/11 taught us is we can't just sit around and do nothing until they hit our shores. We must be proactive in our approach. So instead of waiting for Saddam to act we stopped him before he caused something just as bad as 9/11.

Proactive?

Bush/Cheney Administration: "The C.I.A. has been fooled; Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein"

 

[Billo_Really]

Doesn't it depend on the target? I agree random drone strikes are. Follow up strikes on first-responders are pretty terrible too.

How would you like to live where you could be killed at any moment of the day or night? No matter what you were doing - going to the store, picking up firewood, celebrating a marriage, taking a walk, sleeping - you could be targeted and hit with a missile from a drone, fired by some Top Gun watching, 20 year old kid, sitting behind a joy stick in an air conditioned room in the middle of Nevada looking at a monitor.

The psychological trauma a population endures when those things are flying over head is tantamount to terrorism.

 

[Billo_Really]

Keep on thinking you know more than those who are privy to all of the intel that we are not privy to.

I will be waiting for someone to explain to me why Obama did not investigate Bush (keep in mind you all say he is as guilty as hitler, which is pathetic but that is what you believe) expanded the war in Afghanistan, tried to keep the troops in Iraq and killed mythical terrorists with drones.

How is it again that you all don't feel like pawns when the democrats tell you one thing and do another......blatantly? Do you all really believe they care so much about the poor or are they more interested in getting votes from the poor ? Why can't you all see the real reasons they play on your heart strings while they blame white rich people and republicans as they expand those on food stamps and by doing that increase their constituency?

Republican's and Democrat's are flip-sides of the same coin. They both answer to the same people. This two-party system is a myth. It doesn't matter who is in the WH, it's business as usual in Washington DC.

Now please remove that signature of yours. I've had to clean my monitor at least 3 times today.

 

[KNB]

Republican voters should pressure their Congress members to repeal the USAPATRIOT Act and AUMF because Obama abuses Presidential power.

 

[KNB]

No, really. If Republicans are so upset with Obama's tyrannical rule then why don't they repeal the USAPATRIOT Act which greatly expanded Executive authority?

 

[KNB]

We're still trillions of dollars more in debt because of Bush's lies.

 

[U2Edge]

Of course, it's all Obama's fault. Now that we have that out of the way, Republicans are free to review the declassified Bush government documents which prove that the information on Iraq's WMD was fabricated to justify the preemptive invasion and all consequences thereafter.

The material presented in this electronic briefing book includes both essential pre-war documentation and documents produced or released subsequent to the start of military action in March 2003. Pre-war documentation includes the major unclassified U.S. and British assessments of Iraq's WMD programs; the IAEA and UNSCOM reports covering the final period prior to their 1998 departure, and between November 27, 2002, and February 2003; the transcript of a key speech by President Bush; a statement of U.S. policy toward combating WMD; the transcript of and slides for Secretary Powell's presentation to the U.N. on February 5, 2003; and documents from the 1980s and 1990's concerning various aspects of Iraqi WMD activities.
Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction

The documents suggest that the public relations push for war came before the intelligence analysis, which then conformed to public positions taken by Pentagon and White House officials. For example, a July 2002 draft of the "White Paper" ultimately issued by the CIA in October 2002 actually pre-dated the National Intelligence Estimate that the paper purportedly summarized, but which Congress did not insist on until September 2002.
U.S. Intelligence and Iraq WMD

Washington, D.C., October 4, 2010 - For nearly a year before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the British government of Prime Minister Tony Blair collaborated closely with the George W. Bush administration to produce a far starker picture of the threat from Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) than was justified by intelligence at the time, according to British and American government documents posted today by the National Security Archive.

With the aim of strengthening the political case for going to war, both governments regularly coordinated their assessments, the records show, occasionally downplaying and even eliminating points of disagreement over the available intelligence. The new materials, acquired largely through the U.K. Freedom of Information Act and often featuring less redacted versions of previously released records, also reveal that the Blair administration, far earlier than has been appreciated until now, utilized public relations specialists to help craft the formal intelligence “white papers” about Iraq’s WMD program.

At one point, even though intelligence officials were skeptical, the British went so far as to incorporate in their white paper allegations about Saddam’s nuclear ambitions because they had been made publicly by President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART III: Shaping the Debate

Washington, DC, March 19, 2013 – The U.S. invasion of Iraq turned out to be a textbook case of flawed assumptions, wrong-headed intelligence, propaganda manipulation, and administrative ad hockery, according to the National Security Archive's briefing book of declassified documents posted today to mark the 10th anniversary of the war.

The Archive's documentary primer includes the famous Downing Street memo ("intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"), the POLO STEP PowerPoint invasion plans (assuming out of existence any possible insurgency), an FBI interview with Saddam Hussein in captivity (he said he lied about weapons of mass destruction to keep Iran guessing and deterred), and the infamous National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (wrong in its findings, but with every noted dissent turning out to be accurate).

"These dozen documents provide essential reading for anyone trying to understand the Iraq war," remarked Joyce Battle, Archive senior analyst who is compiling a definitive reference collection of declassified documents on the Iraq War. "At a moment when the public is debating the costs and consequences of the U.S. invasion, these primary sources refresh the memory and ground the discussion with contemporary evidence."

A decade after the U.S. invasion of Iraq (March 19, 2003), the debate continues over whether the United States truly believed that Iraq's supposed WMD capabilities posed an imminent danger, and whether the results of the engagement have been worth the high costs to both countries. To mark the 10 th anniversary of the start of hostilities, the National Security Archive has posted a selection of essential historical documents framing the key elements of one of America's most significant foreign policy choices of recent times. The records elucidate the decision to go to war, to administer a post-invasion Iraq, and to sell the idea to Congress, the media, and the public at large.
The Iraq War Ten Years After

This totally misses the point that the goal was to PREVENT Saddam from ever having any WMD capability again! It would have been stupid to wait to launch an invasion until Saddam had re-acquired his prior WMD capacity. That was why there was a decade of attempts at sanctions, the weapons embargo and the bombing of Iraq every year from 1991 through 2003. Given that the sanctions and weapons embargo regimes were falling apart, it was only a matter of time before Saddam would have rebuilt his prior capabilities. It was important to act early, before SADDAM had rebuilt any of his prior capabilities in the WMD field. To wait until such capabilities developed would have resulted in far heavier casualties for both military forces and civilians in the region.

Removing Saddam was a necessity and the fact that US troops did not have to face the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction in their invasion to remove Saddam from power is something that should be celebrated!

 

[TooTall]

No, really. If Republicans are so upset with Obama's tyrannical rule then why don't they repeal the USAPATRIOT Act which greatly expanded Executive authority?

In case you haven't noticed, if the Republican controlled house did vote to repeal the Patriot Act, Harry Reid would not allow it to be voted on in the Senate. If the Republicans get control of the Senate and did repeal the Patriot Act next year, Obama would veto it and it would take 67 votes in the Senate to override the veto.

Any more questions?

 

[zeke]

No, really. If Republicans are so upset with Obama's tyrannical rule then why don't they repeal the USAPATRIOT Act which greatly expanded Executive authority?

In case you haven't noticed, if the Republican controlled house did vote to repeal the Patriot Act, Harry Reid would not allow it to be voted on in the Senate. If the Republicans get control of the Senate and did repeal the Patriot Act next year, Obama would veto it and it would take 67 votes in the Senate to override the veto.

A?ny more questions

Yea. IF the Republicans really hate the Patriot Act, then they should make the legislative effort to repeal that act. Then when the Dems block the effort, the Republicans could beat them over the head about how the Dems are against the freedom of Americans.

Or the Repubs would actually be successful in repealing one of the worst pieces of legislation to come out of any Congress in a long time.

SO why don't the Repubs do that? I would support their efforts. A great many Americans would support eliminating the Patriot Act.

 

[TooTall]

Clintonians? Bush was a Clintonian? Who invaded Iraq in 2003? Who was it? Clinton? Was it President Bill Clinton who lied to America to invade Iraq in 2003?

Those Republicans on this forum who have read the Bush administration's declassified documents are not trying to argue in this thread anymore. Read the truth from the Bush administration. What the Bush administration said in public were lies, but their declassified documents show what they were really up to. They doctored the intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities to justify an otherwise unjustifiable invasion of Iraq in 2003.

George W. Bush lied to America and the world in 2003. Not Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton lied to bomb Iraq but didn't try to occupy it. Bush lied to invade and occupy Iraq.

This is what started the Iraq invasion.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.
The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:
1. committed various and significant violations of international law,
2. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and
3. further had ignored resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.
The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives[4] and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[5] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998. The law's stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction. Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.

That's interesting. The Desert Crossing war game scenario of 1999 said that 400,000 US soldiers in Iraq would still not be able to create a functioning democracy.

And if Congress voted in 1998 to remove Saddam Hussein from power, why did the US wait another 5 years? Why was it only after the PNAC's "new Pearl Harbor" in New York did Bush lie to the world about Iraq's WMD capabilities to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power?

And did George W. Bush follow the military's advice and put more than 400,000 US soldiers in Iraq, considering that the military said that 400,000 US soldiers in Iraq would NOT be enough to handle the quagmire created by Bush's lies?
Post-Saddam Iraq: The War Game

I am waiting for the LIE that Bush told. Bush merely repeated what prominent Democrats had said based on the intelligence from the US and other countries intelligence agencies.