The Bush Admin. Never Lied To Justify the Invasion of Iraq.

[Slyhunter]

I'm about as "conservative" as a man can be but let's face it: Bush lied! Firstly, the "weapons of mass destruction" BS was an excuse to grab some oil fields. Secondly, Hussein was about to dump the US dollar which is a big-time no-no. Thirdly, Bush answered to the Israeli lobby like most American politicians do. The fact of the matter is that there were bigger threats to America's national security than Iraq but we chose to ignore the Communist Chinese threat and decided to pummel Iraq instead. Was I a fan of Iraq? Nope! But we had bigger fish to fry like sealing and defending our southern border.

If that's true why didn't we grab the oil fields? Your facts are full of fiction.

Really?

Despite the US’s declared withdrawal of its military personnel and contractors out of Iraq, Washington has prepared to control the country's rich oil reserves in any case, shared Ranjit Singh Kalha, former India's ambassador to Iraq in the 1990s.
*Having spent $3 trillion in Iraq, a country with harsh weather conditions (+50 C most of the time) and absolutely nothing valuable but oil reserves, the Americans simply cannot give up the plentiful and very high quality oil they went there for.

'US to control Iraq oil always' ? RT News

Back at ya!!

Have you looked at gas prices lately. And if we controlled Iraq's oil why did we let them rejoin OPEC?

 

[Dayton3]

Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush and his top aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001, according to a study released Tuesday by two nonprofit journalism groups.

President Bush addresses the nation as the Iraq war
begins in March 2003.

"In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003," reads an overview of the examination, conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

According to the study, Bush and seven top officials -- including Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- made 935 false statements about Iraq during those two years.

The study was based on a searchable database compiled of primary sources, such as official government transcripts and speeches, and secondary sources -- mainly quotes from major media organizations.

Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war - CNN.com

Assuming all that is true, (and I do not concede that) what of it?

Do you have evidence that anyone in the Bush admin. KNOWINGLY passed on information they KNEW was false?

If they didn't know it was false they did not lie.

My God man...935 false statements and your reply is "what of it?" That shows either mass corruption or mass ignorance. Which one is it?

In light of the attack on Obama over Benghazi, do you also say "what of it?"

We do know Bush lied to the American people before he became president. He was highly critical of Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist:

"I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building. …If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world and [conducting] nation-building missions, then we are going to have a serious problem coming down the road and I’m going to prevent that.”

Now we find out the plans to invade Iraq were already being discussed 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

9-11 changed President Bush's position on nation building because the 9-11 attacks were launched directly out of the failed state of Afghanistan (which was on NO ONES radar until 9-11)

 

[Bfgrn]

Assuming all that is true, (and I do not concede that) what of it?

Do you have evidence that anyone in the Bush admin. KNOWINGLY passed on information they KNEW was false?

If they didn't know it was false they did not lie.

My God man...935 false statements and your reply is "what of it?" That shows either mass corruption or mass ignorance. Which one is it?

In light of the attack on Obama over Benghazi, do you also say "what of it?"

We do know Bush lied to the American people before he became president. He was highly critical of Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist:

"I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building. …If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world and [conducting] nation-building missions, then we are going to have a serious problem coming down the road and I’m going to prevent that.”

Now we find out the plans to invade Iraq were already being discussed 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

9-11 changed President Bush's position on nation building because the 9-11 attacks were launched directly out of the failed state of Afghanistan (which was on NO ONES radar until 9-11)

Are you paying attention??? The plans to invade Iraq were already being discussed 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

What we NOW know from G.W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary, the invasion of Iraq was discussed 10 days into the administration.

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq

Going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq - CBS News

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Bush Admin. Never Lied To Justify the Invasion of Iraq.

This is a lie.

Twenty Lies About the Iraq War | Global Research

 

[Slyhunter]

My God man...935 false statements and your reply is "what of it?" That shows either mass corruption or mass ignorance. Which one is it?

In light of the attack on Obama over Benghazi, do you also say "what of it?"

We do know Bush lied to the American people before he became president. He was highly critical of Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist:

"I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building. …If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world and [conducting] nation-building missions, then we are going to have a serious problem coming down the road and I’m going to prevent that.”

Now we find out the plans to invade Iraq were already being discussed 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

9-11 changed President Bush's position on nation building because the 9-11 attacks were launched directly out of the failed state of Afghanistan (which was on NO ONES radar until 9-11)

Are you paying attention??? The plans to invade Iraq were already being discussed 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

What we NOW know from G.W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary, the invasion of Iraq was discussed 10 days into the administration.

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq

Going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq - CBS News

We also made plans to invade Russia, what is your point?

 

[georgephillip]

And the far left continues to show that the history of Iraq started in 2003.

How about 1944?

"The Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement of 1944 was based on negotiations between the United States and Britain over the control of Middle Eastern oil. Below is shown what the American President Franklin D. Roosevelt had in mind for to a British Ambassador in 1944:

Persian oil ... is yours. We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for Saudi Arabian oil, it's ours.[7]"

United States foreign policy in the Middle East - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[birddog]

Dubya was a good President although I did not agree with his decision to put ground troops into Iraq. Some Special Forces he already had there combined with more strategic bombing and sanctions there and other places in the ME that had real teeth in them would have been more effective.

Instead, troops should have been put on our borders to stop illegals and terrorists. We would be better off financially and would not have all those dead and maimed military people.

Israel should be allowed to defend itself and the oil fields would be more stable.

Dubya made some bad decisions IMHO, but they were understandable.

The incompetent fool we have now as CIC makes no sense at all!

 

[Peach]

Bush probably didn't lie, he ignorantly didn't look into the situation good enough and only listened to a select few inner circle advisers who were all way too gung-ho about invading. Most likely he believed everything he said...even believing about there being ties between Alqaeda and Saddam.

The fact that Bush is a dumbass doesn't make the situation any better for him though, and certainly not any better for the neoconservatives.

Cheney pushed for the invasion, not that he had anything to gain personally, except a few million that is.

 

[Camp]

Dubya was a good President although I did not agree with his decision to put ground troops into Iraq. Some Special Forces he already had there combined with more strategic bombing and sanctions there and other places in the ME that had real teeth in them would have been more effective.

Instead, troops should have been put on our borders to stop illegals and terrorists. We would be better off financially and would not have all those dead and maimed military people.

Israel should be allowed to defend itself and the oil fields would be more stable.

Dubya made some bad decisions IMHO, but they were understandable.

The incompetent fool we have now as CIC makes no sense at all!

Obama has proven himself competent at reducing the number of flag draped coffins and maimed soldiers coming home. Nobody is perfect, but not creating dead and maimed soldiers is a good trait to have in a President.

 

[rightwinger]

Bush gave Saddam plenty of time to prove he didn't have wmd's, he chose to bluff and paid the ultimate price. I'm glad he is gone, but not glad obama screwed it up.

UN weapon inspector Hans Blix told Bush he did not think Saddam had the weapons Bush said he did. He requested more time to prove it. Bush invaded before the UN inspectors could remove his reason for invading

Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bush allowed Colin Powell to stall while trying to convince more countries into invading with us via the UN. I thought this was a mistake. We should've gone in months earlier than we did. We gave Saddam too much time to hide his WMD's in Syria.

There were no WMDs

No scientists, no production workers, no paper trail, no witnesses. We scoured the country and found nothing

Bush lied

 

[rightwinger]

Assuming all that is true, (and I do not concede that) what of it?

Do you have evidence that anyone in the Bush admin. KNOWINGLY passed on information they KNEW was false?

If they didn't know it was false they did not lie.

My God man...935 false statements and your reply is "what of it?" That shows either mass corruption or mass ignorance. Which one is it?

In light of the attack on Obama over Benghazi, do you also say "what of it?"

We do know Bush lied to the American people before he became president. He was highly critical of Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist:

"I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building. …If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world and [conducting] nation-building missions, then we are going to have a serious problem coming down the road and I’m going to prevent that.”

Now we find out the plans to invade Iraq were already being discussed 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

9-11 changed President Bush's position on nation building because the 9-11 attacks were launched directly out of the failed state of Afghanistan (which was on NO ONES radar until 9-11)

Actually, Saudi Arabia had a bigger role in the development of AlQaida and 17 of the 19 911 attackers were Saudis

 

[Slyhunter]

UN weapon inspector Hans Blix told Bush he did not think Saddam had the weapons Bush said he did. He requested more time to prove it. Bush invaded before the UN inspectors could remove his reason for invading

Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bush allowed Colin Powell to stall while trying to convince more countries into invading with us via the UN. I thought this was a mistake. We should've gone in months earlier than we did. We gave Saddam too much time to hide his WMD's in Syria.

There were no WMDs

No scientists, no production workers, no paper trail, no witnesses. We scoured the country and found nothing

Bush lied

We found plenty of proof of WMD. Old wmd and we have convoys going from Iraq to Syria probably transporting the bulk of it there. Bush didn't lie you did.

 

[rightwinger]

Bush allowed Colin Powell to stall while trying to convince more countries into invading with us via the UN. I thought this was a mistake. We should've gone in months earlier than we did. We gave Saddam too much time to hide his WMD's in Syria.

There were no WMDs

No scientists, no production workers, no paper trail, no witnesses. We scoured the country and found nothing

Bush lied

We found plenty of proof of WMD. Old wmd and we have convoys going from Iraq to Syria probably transporting the bulk of it there. Bush didn't lie you did.

We found 20 yr old expired shit. The proof we found was that he WMD program had been discontinued Hardly the threat worth 6000 American lives

Bush played us for suckers to get the invasion he craved from his first day in office

 

[Camp]

Bush allowed Colin Powell to stall while trying to convince more countries into invading with us via the UN. I thought this was a mistake. We should've gone in months earlier than we did. We gave Saddam too much time to hide his WMD's in Syria.

There were no WMDs

No scientists, no production workers, no paper trail, no witnesses. We scoured the country and found nothing

Bush lied

We found plenty of proof of WMD. Old wmd and we have convoys going from Iraq to Syria probably transporting the bulk of it there. Bush didn't lie you did.

Old wmd's and probably convoys are not reasons to send our kids off to kill other peoples kids and come home in flag draped coffins and maimed. And we would have never allowed Bush to have that war if he hadn't connected Saddam with al Qaeda. He claimed Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. He did in the biggest speech a President give, the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS in front of the whole world, live. He did it after 9/11 and when we had troops on the ground in Afghanistan fighting al Qaeda. He claimed that Saddam had WMD's and was connected to al Qaeda to the extent that he was giving aid and protection to them. He did right before he sought congressional permission to invade Iraq.
Think it's all bullshit? Here he is saying it in his speech. It is at .56 in this video. Take one minute and see it with your own eyes. "SADDAM AIDS AND PROTECTS TERRORIST, INCLUDING MEMBERS OF AL QAEDA" President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 2003

If this isn't proof certain of a Bush lie, where is the evidence, link or source to confirm that Saddam gave aid and protection to members of al Qaeda?

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZKd71JxEYzE]olberman bush iraq lie - YouTube[/ame]

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Yet 80% of the country got the impression that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and was close to having nukes....

 

[Dayton3]

Dubya was a good President although I did not agree with his decision to put ground troops into Iraq. Some Special Forces he already had there combined with more strategic bombing and sanctions there and other places in the ME that had real teeth in them would have been more effective.

Instead, troops should have been put on our borders to stop illegals and terrorists. We would be better off financially and would not have all those dead and maimed military people.

Israel should be allowed to defend itself and the oil fields would be more stable.

Dubya made some bad decisions IMHO, but they were understandable.

The incompetent fool we have now as CIC makes no sense at all!

Obama has proven himself competent at reducing the number of flag draped coffins and maimed soldiers coming home. Nobody is perfect, but not creating dead and maimed soldiers is a good trait to have in a President.

I guess you did not know that far, far more Americans have died in President Obama's five and a half years in Afghanistan than died there in 7 years under Bush?

 

[KissMy]

I guess you did not know that far, far more Americans have died in President Obama's five and a half years in Afghanistan than died there in 7 years under Bush?

Bush got over 8,200 Americans killed on his watch. Obama has only 1926 so far.

But Obama has killed 10 times more Al Qaeda terrorist than Bush, while only killing twice as many collateral damage civilians.

 

[Camp]

Dubya was a good President although I did not agree with his decision to put ground troops into Iraq. Some Special Forces he already had there combined with more strategic bombing and sanctions there and other places in the ME that had real teeth in them would have been more effective.

Instead, troops should have been put on our borders to stop illegals and terrorists. We would be better off financially and would not have all those dead and maimed military people.

Israel should be allowed to defend itself and the oil fields would be more stable.

Dubya made some bad decisions IMHO, but they were understandable.

The incompetent fool we have now as CIC makes no sense at all!

Obama has proven himself competent at reducing the number of flag draped coffins and maimed soldiers coming home. Nobody is perfect, but not creating dead and maimed soldiers is a good trait to have in a President.

I guess you did not know that far, far more Americans have died in President Obama's five and a half years in Afghanistan than died there in 7 years under Bush?

Sure I knew that. Read the above post. Says it all.

 

[MaryL]

All the pretenses that where used to justify the invasion of Iraq, just WHERE NOT TRUE. Lies or delusions. And here we are 11 years later running away from a mess we created like weak little scaredy cats. A huge waste of lives and treasure, for NOTHING. We were so angry after 9/11 we wanted blood. That passion is evaporating. Now we just want to wash or hands of this affair and pretend it never happened. And those poor Iraqis, and this ISIS thing...makes me sick. George W Bush, are you happy now?

 

[Metzor]

After 9-11 we gave Bush a 9-11 Card

It allowed him to do anything he thought necessary to fight terrorism. We gave him the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Afghanistan and even looked the other way when he engaged in torture

But what Bush really wanted was Iraq. But nobody could link Iraq to 9-11. So what could Bush do?

Claim that Saddam was going to give WMDs to terrorists. We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

Bush lied

The problem is that everyone agreed with him. Even democrats.