Bush's Lies Caused The Iraq War

[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.

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.

They tried to repeal the ACA and have been ridiculed by you bedwetters and the MSM for trying.

 

[TooTall]

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

Here is a timeline for you.

Armitage tendered his resignation on November 16, 2004, the day after Powell announced his resignation as Secretary of State. He left the post on February 22, 2005, when Robert Zoellicksucceeded to the office.

On November 15, 2005, journalist Bob Woodward of The Washington Post revealed that "a government official with no axe to grind" leaked to him the identity of outed CIA officer Valerie Plamein mid-June 2003. According to an April 2006 Vanity Fair article (published March 14, 2006), formerWashington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee said in an interview "that Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption", though Bradlee later told the Post that he "[did] not recall making that precise statement" in the interview.[11]
On March 2, 2006, bloggers discovered that "Richard Armitage" fit the spacing on a redacted court document, suggesting he was a source for the Plame leak

The Times claims that White House counsel Alberto Gonzales was informed that Armitage was involved on October 2, 2003, but asked not to be told details. Patrick Fitzgerald began his grand jury investigation three months later knowing Armitage was a leaker (as did Attorney General John Ashcroft before turning over the investigation).

And all that time you thought the persecution of Lewis "Scooter" Libby was to find the leaker didn't you.

 

[KNB]

You want a timeline? Try this one:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/IraqWarPart1-Timeline.pdf


The Bush administration lied to justify the invasion of Iraq.

THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I:*The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART II: Was There Even a Decision?
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART III: Shaping the Debate

What you have here are declassified government documents from the Bush administration. Don't talk, don't make any ridiculous claims about "Bush was just repeating what Democrats said". That's all bullshit, proven wrong by Bush's DECLASSIFIED GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS.

Bush lied, every member of his administration lied, these "fiscal conservatives" cost our nation trillions of dollars that we didn't need to spend, killed tens of thousands of people who were not a threat to the US, and the pieces of shit couldn't even finish their illegal war and left it for the next President to clean up.

You people keep defending Bush like you were part of his administration. You weren't. None of you were. The Bush administration lied to you, too. Why do you still defend them? Just to avoid admitting how wrong you all were? That just makes you all even more wrong.

Bush lied to you and cost you trillions of dollars. Why are you still loyal to him? He would never show you that kind of loyalty.

 

[U2Edge]

You want a timeline? Try this one:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/IraqWarPart1-Timeline.pdf


The Bush administration lied to justify the invasion of Iraq.

THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I:*The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART II: Was There Even a Decision?
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART III: Shaping the Debate

What you have here are declassified government documents from the Bush administration. Don't talk, don't make any ridiculous claims about "Bush was just repeating what Democrats said". That's all bullshit, proven wrong by Bush's DECLASSIFIED GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS.

Bush lied, every member of his administration lied, these "fiscal conservatives" cost our nation trillions of dollars that we didn't need to spend, killed tens of thousands of people who were not a threat to the US, and the pieces of shit couldn't even finish their illegal war and left it for the next President to clean up.

You people keep defending Bush like you were part of his administration. You weren't. None of you were. The Bush administration lied to you, too. Why do you still defend them? Just to avoid admitting how wrong you all were? That just makes you all even more wrong.

Bush lied to you and cost you trillions of dollars. Why are you still loyal to him? He would never show you that kind of loyalty.

Bush was right, and his critics were wrong. It was a necessity to remove SADDAM! Only those ignorant of SADDAM's time in power from 1979 to 2003 would be likely to argue otherwise. Nobody lied and the United States spent LESS on national defense from 2000 through 2009, as a percentage of GDP, than it did during the peacetime of the 1980s. That includes all defense spending from what is spent in any given year in addition to spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That spending averaged about 4.5% of US GDP from 2000 to 2009. By comparison, during the peacetime of the 1980s, the United States spent 6% of GDP every year on defense. Both wars were relatively cheap and did a lot of good for United States security, Persian Gulf Security and for the security of the world!

 

[TooTall]

You want a timeline? Try this one:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/IraqWarPart1-Timeline.pdf


The Bush administration lied to justify the invasion of Iraq.

THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I:*The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART II: Was There Even a Decision?
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART III: Shaping the Debate

What you have here are declassified government documents from the Bush administration. Don't talk, don't make any ridiculous claims about "Bush was just repeating what Democrats said". That's all bullshit, proven wrong by Bush's DECLASSIFIED GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS.

Bush lied, every member of his administration lied, these "fiscal conservatives" cost our nation trillions of dollars that we didn't need to spend, killed tens of thousands of people who were not a threat to the US, and the pieces of shit couldn't even finish their illegal war and left it for the next President to clean up.

You people keep defending Bush like you were part of his administration. You weren't. None of you were. The Bush administration lied to you, too. Why do you still defend them? Just to avoid admitting how wrong you all were? That just makes you all even more wrong.

Bush lied to you and cost you trillions of dollars. Why are you still loyal to him? He would never show you that kind of loyalty.

Four countries participated with troops during the initial (Iraq) invasion phase, which lasted from 19 March to 9 April 2003. These were the United States (148,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), and Poland (194). 36 other countries were involved in its aftermath. In preparation for the invasion, 100,000 U.S. troops were assembled in Kuwait by 18 February. The coalition forces also received support from Kurdish irregulars in Iraqi Kurdistan.

I am not interested in the rewriting of history based on contingency planning that is always done by those in power.

I still haven't seen the LIE you say Bush told. I will defend Bush's decision to invade Iraq, since he got the votes in Congress and UN Resolution 1441 to back him up. You defend Saddam Hussein. I will repeat as many times as it takes to get you to understand that all Bush did was repeat the information he got from the CIA, his advisers and leading Democrats and Republicans in the Congress. If they were all wrong, they need to share the blame.

I will defend Bush's decision to invade Iraq, since he got the votes in Congress and UN Resolution 1441 to back him up. You defend Saddam Hussein.

I might add, the POS we got now sure did a good job of cleaning up after Bush, huh! All he had to do was negotiate a status of forces agreement to leave some US support in country and he couldn't handle it.

I am an American Veteran, are you?

 

[Camp]

You want a timeline? Try this one:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/IraqWarPart1-Timeline.pdf


The Bush administration lied to justify the invasion of Iraq.

THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I:*The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART II: Was There Even a Decision?
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART III: Shaping the Debate

What you have here are declassified government documents from the Bush administration. Don't talk, don't make any ridiculous claims about "Bush was just repeating what Democrats said". That's all bullshit, proven wrong by Bush's DECLASSIFIED GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS.

Bush lied, every member of his administration lied, these "fiscal conservatives" cost our nation trillions of dollars that we didn't need to spend, killed tens of thousands of people who were not a threat to the US, and the pieces of shit couldn't even finish their illegal war and left it for the next President to clean up.

You people keep defending Bush like you were part of his administration. You weren't. None of you were. The Bush administration lied to you, too. Why do you still defend them? Just to avoid admitting how wrong you all were? That just makes you all even more wrong.

Bush lied to you and cost you trillions of dollars. Why are you still loyal to him? He would never show you that kind of loyalty.

Four countries participated with troops during the initial (Iraq) invasion phase, which lasted from 19 March to 9 April 2003. These were the United States (148,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), and Poland (194). 36 other countries were involved in its aftermath. In preparation for the invasion, 100,000 U.S. troops were assembled in Kuwait by 18 February. The coalition forces also received support from Kurdish irregulars in Iraqi Kurdistan.

I am not interested in the rewriting of history based on contingency planning that is always done by those in power.

I still haven't seen the LIE you say Bush told. I will defend Bush's decision to invade Iraq, since he got the votes in Congress and UN Resolution 1441 to back him up. You defend Saddam Hussein. I will repeat as many times as it takes to get you to understand that all Bush did was repeat the information he got from the CIA, his advisers and leading Democrats and Republicans in the Congress. If they were all wrong, they need to share the blame.

I will defend Bush's decision to invade Iraq, since he got the votes in Congress and UN Resolution 1441 to back him up. You defend Saddam Hussein.

I might add, the POS we got now sure did a good job of cleaning up after Bush, huh! All he had to do was negotiate a status of forces agreement to leave some US support in country and he couldn't handle it.

I am an American Veteran, are you?

His biggest lie was one he owns all to himself. He made it on Jan. 28, 2002 in a speech watched live by not only the nation, but the whole world. It was the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS and in it he claimed collusion and a connection between Saddam and members of al Qaeda. He told us Saddam was aiding and protecting members of al Qaeda. That was a blatant lie. He nor any member of his administration has ever been able to show where that claim came from of what it was based on. It was a blatant lie.

 

[TooTall]

You want a timeline? Try this one:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/IraqWarPart1-Timeline.pdf


The Bush administration lied to justify the invasion of Iraq.

THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I:*The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART II: Was There Even a Decision?
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART III: Shaping the Debate

What you have here are declassified government documents from the Bush administration. Don't talk, don't make any ridiculous claims about "Bush was just repeating what Democrats said". That's all bullshit, proven wrong by Bush's DECLASSIFIED GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS.

Bush lied, every member of his administration lied, these "fiscal conservatives" cost our nation trillions of dollars that we didn't need to spend, killed tens of thousands of people who were not a threat to the US, and the pieces of shit couldn't even finish their illegal war and left it for the next President to clean up.

You people keep defending Bush like you were part of his administration. You weren't. None of you were. The Bush administration lied to you, too. Why do you still defend them? Just to avoid admitting how wrong you all were? That just makes you all even more wrong.

Bush lied to you and cost you trillions of dollars. Why are you still loyal to him? He would never show you that kind of loyalty.

Four countries participated with troops during the initial (Iraq) invasion phase, which lasted from 19 March to 9 April 2003. These were the United States (148,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), and Poland (194). 36 other countries were involved in its aftermath. In preparation for the invasion, 100,000 U.S. troops were assembled in Kuwait by 18 February. The coalition forces also received support from Kurdish irregulars in Iraqi Kurdistan.

I am not interested in the rewriting of history based on contingency planning that is always done by those in power.

I still haven't seen the LIE you say Bush told. I will defend Bush's decision to invade Iraq, since he got the votes in Congress and UN Resolution 1441 to back him up. You defend Saddam Hussein. I will repeat as many times as it takes to get you to understand that all Bush did was repeat the information he got from the CIA, his advisers and leading Democrats and Republicans in the Congress. If they were all wrong, they need to share the blame.

I will defend Bush's decision to invade Iraq, since he got the votes in Congress and UN Resolution 1441 to back him up. You defend Saddam Hussein.

I might add, the POS we got now sure did a good job of cleaning up after Bush, huh! All he had to do was negotiate a status of forces agreement to leave some US support in country and he couldn't handle it.

I am an American Veteran, are you?

His biggest lie was one he owns all to himself. He made it on Jan. 28, 2002 in a speech watched live by not only the nation, but the whole world. It was the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS and in it he claimed collusion and a connection between Saddam and members of al Qaeda. He told us Saddam was aiding and protecting members of al Qaeda. That was a blatant lie. He nor any member of his administration has ever been able to show where that claim came from of what it was based on. It was a blatant lie.

Perhaps you can provide me the exact quote from his 2002 SOU speech where he said that, or anything that remotely indicated that. I think you just made that up, so prove me wrong if you can.

 

[U2Edge]

You want a timeline? Try this one:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/IraqWarPart1-Timeline.pdf


The Bush administration lied to justify the invasion of Iraq.

THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I:*The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART II: Was There Even a Decision?
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART III: Shaping the Debate

What you have here are declassified government documents from the Bush administration. Don't talk, don't make any ridiculous claims about "Bush was just repeating what Democrats said". That's all bullshit, proven wrong by Bush's DECLASSIFIED GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS.

Bush lied, every member of his administration lied, these "fiscal conservatives" cost our nation trillions of dollars that we didn't need to spend, killed tens of thousands of people who were not a threat to the US, and the pieces of shit couldn't even finish their illegal war and left it for the next President to clean up.

You people keep defending Bush like you were part of his administration. You weren't. None of you were. The Bush administration lied to you, too. Why do you still defend them? Just to avoid admitting how wrong you all were? That just makes you all even more wrong.

Bush lied to you and cost you trillions of dollars. Why are you still loyal to him? He would never show you that kind of loyalty.

Four countries participated with troops during the initial (Iraq) invasion phase, which lasted from 19 March to 9 April 2003. These were the United States (148,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), and Poland (194). 36 other countries were involved in its aftermath. In preparation for the invasion, 100,000 U.S. troops were assembled in Kuwait by 18 February. The coalition forces also received support from Kurdish irregulars in Iraqi Kurdistan.

I am not interested in the rewriting of history based on contingency planning that is always done by those in power.

I still haven't seen the LIE you say Bush told. I will defend Bush's decision to invade Iraq, since he got the votes in Congress and UN Resolution 1441 to back him up. You defend Saddam Hussein. I will repeat as many times as it takes to get you to understand that all Bush did was repeat the information he got from the CIA, his advisers and leading Democrats and Republicans in the Congress. If they were all wrong, they need to share the blame.

I will defend Bush's decision to invade Iraq, since he got the votes in Congress and UN Resolution 1441 to back him up. You defend Saddam Hussein.

I might add, the POS we got now sure did a good job of cleaning up after Bush, huh! All he had to do was negotiate a status of forces agreement to leave some US support in country and he couldn't handle it.

I am an American Veteran, are you?

His biggest lie was one he owns all to himself. He made it on Jan. 28, 2002 in a speech watched live by not only the nation, but the whole world. It was the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS and in it he claimed collusion and a connection between Saddam and members of al Qaeda. He told us Saddam was aiding and protecting members of al Qaeda. That was a blatant lie. He nor any member of his administration has ever been able to show where that claim came from of what it was based on. It was a blatant lie.

Inaccurate intelligence is not an example of lying. There is no proof that Bush ever lied about anything. Bush was re-elected by the American people in November 2004 with the first majority win in the popular vote since 1988.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Lied people Diedddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

You've got that right. Pretty low class of you to be joking about it.

There is no evidence Bush lied. But you keep pedaling THAT lie.

Actually there is no evidence that Bush told the truth on March 17 2003 when he declared to all the world that he had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors. He lied that Iraq was not cooperating with the UN inspectors on March 7 through 17 to start a war and has been lying everyday since and will continue to lie as long as there are people out there that fall for it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Inaccurate intelligence is not an example of lying. There is no proof that Bush ever lied about anything. Bush was re-elected by the American people in November 2004 with the first majority win in the popular vote since 1988.

Would claiming to have intelligence on March 17, 2003 in an address to the nation announcing that Bush had decided to start a war during ongoing peaceful UN inspections be a lie in your view if no such intelligence was actually presented to Bush at that time?

The straight dope on Bush's record of lies on Iraq has little to do with inaccurate intelligence from the intelligence agencies of the world because the most accurate intelligence available to Bush at that time came from the UN inspection teams on the ground in Iraq for four months prior to the Bush decision to start a war.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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!

If removing Saddam was a necessity regardless after the unanimous passage of UNSC Resolution 1441 and the subsequent UN inspections that transpired as a result of that Resolution, then you are supporting the argument that Bush lied in October 2002 when he asked Congress to authorize the use of force in order to compel Saddam Hussein to allow UN inspectors back in.

You can't have it both ways. Bush did not seek regime change for regime change's sake in October 2002. The intent of the authorization by Congress for war according to the language in the AUMF was only if necessary had Saddam Hussein not allowed a resumption of UN inspections as he did.

In fact Saddam Hussein offered Bush in December 2002 to let the CIA come into Iraq to search for WMD alongside UN inspectors. Bush rejected that offer.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I will defend Bush's decision to invade Iraq, since he got the votes in Congress and UN Resolution 1441 to back him up.

Your claim that 1441 backs Bush's decision to force "1441" inspectors out of Iraq while inspection teams were in fact engaged in proactive cooperation from Saddam Hussein's government, holds absolutely no merit. That is a weak and implausible defense of Bush's decision to start a war.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Just yesterday we learned that Saddam had chemical stockpiles.

How on earth could you believe such a claim, and repeat it?

 

[Camp]

I am not interested in the rewriting of history based on contingency planning that is always done by those in power.

I still haven't seen the LIE you say Bush told. I will defend Bush's decision to invade Iraq, since he got the votes in Congress and UN Resolution 1441 to back him up. You defend Saddam Hussein. I will repeat as many times as it takes to get you to understand that all Bush did was repeat the information he got from the CIA, his advisers and leading Democrats and Republicans in the Congress. If they were all wrong, they need to share the blame.

I will defend Bush's decision to invade Iraq, since he got the votes in Congress and UN Resolution 1441 to back him up. You defend Saddam Hussein.

I might add, the POS we got now sure did a good job of cleaning up after Bush, huh! All he had to do was negotiate a status of forces agreement to leave some US support in country and he couldn't handle it.

I am an American Veteran, are you?

His biggest lie was one he owns all to himself. He made it on Jan. 28, 2002 in a speech watched live by not only the nation, but the whole world. It was the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS and in it he claimed collusion and a connection between Saddam and members of al Qaeda. He told us Saddam was aiding and protecting members of al Qaeda. That was a blatant lie. He nor any member of his administration has ever been able to show where that claim came from of what it was based on. It was a blatant lie.

Perhaps you can provide me the exact quote from his 2002 SOU speech where he said that, or anything that remotely indicated that. I think you just made that up, so prove me wrong if you can.

Videos posted at post #'s 189 and 194 of this thread and re-posted in some quotes.

 

[TooTall]

His biggest lie was one he owns all to himself. He made it on Jan. 28, 2002 in a speech watched live by not only the nation, but the whole world. It was the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS and in it he claimed collusion and a connection between Saddam and members of al Qaeda. He told us Saddam was aiding and protecting members of al Qaeda. That was a blatant lie. He nor any member of his administration has ever been able to show where that claim came from of what it was based on. It was a blatant lie.

Perhaps you can provide me the exact quote from his 2002 SOU speech where he said that, or anything that remotely indicated that. I think you just made that up, so prove me wrong if you can.

Videos posted at post #'s 189 and 194 of this thread and re-posted in some quotes.

Are you referring to this from his 2003 SOU?

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Please prove it was a lie.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Perhaps you can provide me the exact quote from his 2002 SOU speech where he said that, or anything that remotely indicated that. I think you just made that up, so prove me wrong if you can.

Here is some of it:

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

 

[TooTall]

Just yesterday we learned that Saddam had chemical stockpiles.

How on earth could you believe such a claim, and repeat it?

How could anyone NOT believe such a claim?

As early as April 1987, the Iraqis used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their villages in northern Iraq during the Anfal campaign. It is estimated that chemical weapons were used on approximately 40 Kurdish villages, with the largest of these attacks occurring on March 16, 1988 against the Kurdish town of Halabja.

Crimes of Saddam Hussein

 

[TooTall]

Perhaps you can provide me the exact quote from his 2002 SOU speech where he said that, or anything that remotely indicated that. I think you just made that up, so prove me wrong if you can.

Here is some of it:

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

Once again, prove that was a lie.

 

[TooTall]

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!

If removing Saddam was a necessity regardless after the unanimous passage of UNSC Resolution 1441 and the subsequent UN inspections that transpired as a result of that Resolution, then you are supporting the argument that Bush lied in October 2002 when he asked Congress to authorize the use of force in order to compel Saddam Hussein to allow UN inspectors back in.

You can't have it both ways. Bush did not seek regime change for regime change's sake in October 2002. The intent of the authorization by Congress for war according to the language in the AUMF was only if necessary had Saddam Hussein not allowed a resumption of UN inspections as he did.

In fact Saddam Hussein offered Bush in December 2002 to let the CIA come into Iraq to search for WMD alongside UN inspectors. Bush rejected that offer.

Several of you on this thread have shown you absolute adoration of everything Saddam Hussein and your hatred of George W Bush. I am an American and a veteran and did not approve of many of the decisions made by Bush during his 8 years. I did approve of the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power since nothing else was going to accomplish that goal set by Clinton in 1998.

 

[Camp]

Perhaps you can provide me the exact quote from his 2002 SOU speech where he said that, or anything that remotely indicated that. I think you just made that up, so prove me wrong if you can.

Videos posted at post #'s 189 and 194 of this thread and re-posted in some quotes.

Are you referring to this from his 2003 SOU?

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Please prove it was a lie.

What happened to the "Evidence from secret sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody"?