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

[KissMy]

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

Saddam's Iraq was already deemed a threat independent of 9-11. I will always stand by Bush's decision to take out Saddam in the wake of watching 19 human waste punks kill 3,000 Americans with Airplanes. Bush gave Saddam every opportunity over an 18 month period following 9-11 to comply and or step down. Hussein did not. In that same time period, Bush used the intel he inherited from the previous admin as well as talking points from Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, Albright, Berger, and Tenet to build his case to Democrats. Democrats had every opportunity to expose Bush for lies.


They could not then and they can't in hindsight because Bush used Democrat intel and talking points. If Bush lied, then that makes Democrats liars too.

Saddam was contained. His forces were depleted and his main concern was staying in power. Provoking Allied powers would not be in his best interests. Why, after ten years of containment, Bush needed to pull forces out of Afghanistan because of some "immediate threat" is ridiculous

Why do you guys keep tying him to 9-11? He had NOTHING to do with it. AlQaida is Shiite, Saddam was Bath Sunni. They did not like eachother

Bush sent Anthrax to Media & Congress people who refused to claim Iraq was behind 9/11 & had WMD's

 

[KNB]

Only the dumbest assholes thought that the anthrax attacks were from foreign sources. If al-Qaeda had limited amounts of anthrax, they wouldn't have sent it to Tom Daschle of all people.

 

[Camp]

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

Saddam's Iraq was already deemed a threat independent of 9-11. I will always stand by Bush's decision to take out Saddam in the wake of watching 19 human waste punks kill 3,000 Americans with Airplanes. Bush gave Saddam every opportunity over an 18 month period following 9-11 to comply and or step down. Hussein did not. In that same time period, Bush used the intel he inherited from the previous admin as well as talking points from Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, Albright, Berger, and Tenet to build his case to Democrats. Democrats had every opportunity to expose Bush for lies.


They could not then and they can't in hindsight because Bush used Democrat intel and talking points. If Bush lied, then that makes Democrats liars too.

Why do you do what Bush did and mention Saddam and 9/11 as though even though you admit no connection, there is a connection. And how was Saddam a threat anyhow. This kind of dishonesty is what created the kind of grief and frustration for the people who lost loved one on 9/11. It makes the carnival misdirection hucksterism of the Bush administration that much more offensive and heinous. You understand that misdirection is a method and technique used to trick people don't you? Is your misdirection done on purpose or because you are one of the suckers that is still misdirected by the Bush efforts?

[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=jTpZYH2x9-k"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=jTpZYH2x9-k[/ame]

 

[Dayton3]

Once again Dick Cheney had no financial incentive through Halliburton to promote a war. Cheney set it up when he became VP that he would receive the EXACT SAME compensation NO MATTER HOW Halliburton did financially.

It is easy to say now that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs. But I was around in 2003 and there was little or no dissent over that issue. Even among the Democrats. At best there was consensus that even if evidence was thin then that was just indications of Saddam Hussein hiding them successfully.

After all, why did Saddam Hussein continuously interfere with UN arms inspectors?

And a nation doesn't have to be able to attack the U.S. directly to cause severe harm to us.

 

[Camp]

Once again Dick Cheney had no financial incentive through Halliburton to promote a war. Cheney set it up when he became VP that he would receive the EXACT SAME compensation NO MATTER HOW Halliburton did financially.

It is easy to say now that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs. But I was around in 2003 and there was little or no dissent over that issue. Even among the Democrats. At best there was consensus that even if evidence was thin then that was just indications of Saddam Hussein hiding them successfully.

After all, why did Saddam Hussein continuously interfere with UN arms inspectors?

And a nation doesn't have to be able to attack the U.S. directly to cause severe harm to us.

Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction

There are almost 20 links in this thread alone from all kinds of sources proving the lies that led to the war in Iraq. Yet those who defend Bush just make comments like the one above, "But I was around in 2003 and there was little or no dissent over the issue." Well, some of the folks who were "around" weren't paying attention to what was going on "around" them. There was lots of dissent. Dissent from important people and organizations and governments. But the folks defending Bush and claiming there were not lies don't use things like links. They use there own made up comments and made up facts. The link above is an impeccable source to show the dissent that was going on.

 

[peach174]

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

That's because the mainstream media lied about it and took it out of context in what he said.

All the while the media ignored or conveniently forgot about what Al Gore said in September of 1992 about Saddam's ties to terrorists and him trying to get nukes.

 

[Billo_Really]

That's because the mainstream media lied about it and took it out of context in what he said.

All the while the media ignored or conveniently forgot about what Al Gore said in September of 1992 about Saddam's ties to terrorists and him trying to get nukes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

Maybe they were too busy dealing with Bush saying he was trying to buy "yellowcake" in Niger in his SOTU speech?

 

[Misty]

I never listen to talking point mantras. I've learned that they are agenda driven bullcrap.

 

[Billo_Really]

We were attacked by a terrorist group based there.

Do you know who Louis Posada is?

 

[Billo_Really]

AND since when do we go to war with a country because a hand full of people attack an entire Country?

mmmmm...............that reminds me..................

............what curriculum do they teach at the School of the America's?

 

[peach174]

That's because the mainstream media lied about it and took it out of context in what he said.

All the while the media ignored or conveniently forgot about what Al Gore said in September of 1992 about Saddam's ties to terrorists and him trying to get nukes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

Maybe they were too busy dealing with Bush saying he was trying to buy "yellowcake" in Niger in his SOTU speech?

Yellowcake CNN

WMD - Yellow Cake - Bush was right - CNN iReport

 

[Camp]

That's because the mainstream media lied about it and took it out of context in what he said.

All the while the media ignored or conveniently forgot about what Al Gore said in September of 1992 about Saddam's ties to terrorists and him trying to get nukes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

Maybe they were too busy dealing with Bush saying he was trying to buy "yellowcake" in Niger in his SOTU speech?

Yellowcake CNN

WMD - Yellow Cake - Bush was right - CNN iReport

The story was debunked shortly after it came out. The CNN link used is not by a reporter. It is an I report. That makes it particularly misinformed.
The yellow cake in question had nothing to do with Bush W and the claim of Saddam attempting to get yellow cake from Africa. The yellow cake in question was discovered by inspectors after the first gulf war and was under UN control until the UN left Iraq shortly before the 2003 invasion.

 

[Slyhunter]

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

Saddam's Iraq was already deemed a threat independent of 9-11. I will always stand by Bush's decision to take out Saddam in the wake of watching 19 human waste punks kill 3,000 Americans with Airplanes. Bush gave Saddam every opportunity over an 18 month period following 9-11 to comply and or step down. Hussein did not. In that same time period, Bush used the intel he inherited from the previous admin as well as talking points from Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, Albright, Berger, and Tenet to build his case to Democrats. Democrats had every opportunity to expose Bush for lies.


They could not then and they can't in hindsight because Bush used Democrat intel and talking points. If Bush lied, then that makes Democrats liars too.

Saddam was contained. His forces were depleted and his main concern was staying in power. Provoking Allied powers would not be in his best interests. Why, after ten years of containment, Bush needed to pull forces out of Afghanistan because of some "immediate threat" is ridiculous

Why do you guys keep tying him to 9-11? He had NOTHING to do with it.

9/11 has proved that we can't just sit idle by letting things happen until they decide to attack us next. 9/11 has proved that we need to be proactive in our activities against Terrorism and Islamic rule.

Why was Saddam continuously provoking the US, if it wasn't in his best interest to do so? Why did he go out of his way to make everyone think he had WMD's if he had none?

 

[GWV5903]

Is Bush already getting the Reagan legacy massage treatment? Might take a few more decades to make that world-wide disaster seem like a liberal plot.

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Yeah these f'kers lied too...

Let's just hang all of them...

Congress received their information from the CIA. Never did the CIA tell Congress (or SoS Powell) that their source for this information was a guy codenamed "curveball" whom they never interviewed, or that the intel agencies in Germany and England had cautioned them about the trustworthiness of "curveball" and that after we had gone in--when they did finally interview "curveball", they issued a burn notice on his intelligence.



Of course you won't watch the video.

Okay so he says he lied to bring down Saddam, he wasn't the source for the Democrat's quotes in this post, so they were just as wrong correct?

Or are you going to continue to lie?

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk

So all of this Intel was from bad sources then?

I can't stand how two faced and chicken shit you and your fellow asshole liberals are...

Sad truth is you probably lie to EDIT in the same fashion...

 

[Bfgrn]

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

That's because the mainstream media lied about it and took it out of context in what he said.

All the while the media ignored or conveniently forgot about what Al Gore said in September of 1992 about Saddam's ties to terrorists and him trying to get nukes.

And totally ignoring what Al Gore said 10 years later, when he NAILED every unintended consequence of one of the BIGGEST mistakes in American foreign policy history.

September 23, 2002

Gore Comes Out Swinging On Iraq

Al Gore harshly criticized President Bush's push for war against Iraq, saying it has hurt the United States' standing and could dangerously undermine the rule of law around the world.

"After Sept. 11, we had enormous sympathy, goodwill and support around the world," Gore said. "We've squandered that, and in one year we've replaced that with fear, anxiety and uncertainty, not at what the terrorists are going to do but at what we are going to do."

In his first major speech on the Iraq situation, the once and possibly future Democratic presidential candidate accused Mr. Bush of abandoning the goal of a world where nations follow laws.

"That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the president of the United States," an idea Gore said would encourage instability around the globe.

"If other nations assert the same right, then the rule of law will quickly be replaced by the reign of fear," and any nation that percieves itself threatened would feel justified in starting wars, he said.

Gore said the Bush administration policy could alienate allies and derail the war on terror.

"If you are going after Jesse James, you ought to organize the posse first," Gore said in a speech to an enthusiastic crowd to the Commonwealth Club of California.

He added, "We should focus first and foremost on our top priority: winning the war against terrorism."

Republicans quickly pounced on the speech as evidence of Gore's weakness.

"It seemed to be a speech more appropriate for a political hack than a presidential candidate by someone who clearly fails to recognize leadership," said Jim Dyke, a Republican National Committee spokesman.

Gore Comes Out Swinging On Iraq - CBS News

Transcript

 

[Kosh]

The far left does not care about anything other than protecting their failed leader.

Obama's policies have set these thing in motion and the far left needs to grow up and admit to it.

Until the far left can grow up the world will never be safe.

 

[Billo_Really]

Yellowcake CNN

WMD - Yellow Cake - Bush was right - CNN iReport

The yellowcake was from an existing nuclear reactor we had known about since 1991, not something Hussein was allegedly trying to purchase in 2002.

U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

 

[MikeK]

Why was Saddam continuously provoking the US, if it wasn't in his best interest to do so? Why did he go out of his way to make everyone think he had WMD's if he had none?

It was necessary for him to do so. Because if Iran, his historical enemy, had known how defenseless he actually was they would unhesitatingly have invaded Iraq. His bluff served to enhance Bush's deception. He had little choice.

Hussein's "interference" with the UN Inspectors, and his "mother of all battles" rhetoric, were efforts to conceal ultimate awareness that he had no substantial weaponry.

 

[Dayton3]

Why was Saddam continuously provoking the US, if it wasn't in his best interest to do so? Why did he go out of his way to make everyone think he had WMD's if he had none?

It was necessary for him to do so. Because if Iran, his historical enemy, had known how defenseless he actually was they would unhesitatingly have invaded Iraq. His bluff served to enhance Bush's deception. He had little choice.

Hussein's "interference" with the UN Inspectors, and his "mother of all battles" rhetoric, were efforts to conceal ultimate awareness that he had no substantial weaponry.

Then the U.S. led invasion was the fault of Saddam Hussein.

If a known murderer yells that he has a gun and is not afraid to use it then it is his fault when the police shoot him dead.

 

[rightwinger]

Saddam's Iraq was already deemed a threat independent of 9-11. I will always stand by Bush's decision to take out Saddam in the wake of watching 19 human waste punks kill 3,000 Americans with Airplanes. Bush gave Saddam every opportunity over an 18 month period following 9-11 to comply and or step down. Hussein did not. In that same time period, Bush used the intel he inherited from the previous admin as well as talking points from Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, Albright, Berger, and Tenet to build his case to Democrats. Democrats had every opportunity to expose Bush for lies.


They could not then and they can't in hindsight because Bush used Democrat intel and talking points. If Bush lied, then that makes Democrats liars too.

Saddam was contained. His forces were depleted and his main concern was staying in power. Provoking Allied powers would not be in his best interests. Why, after ten years of containment, Bush needed to pull forces out of Afghanistan because of some "immediate threat" is ridiculous

Why do you guys keep tying him to 9-11? He had NOTHING to do with it.

9/11 has proved that we can't just sit idle by letting things happen until they decide to attack us next. 9/11 has proved that we need to be proactive in our activities against Terrorism and Islamic rule.

Why was Saddam continuously provoking the US, if it wasn't in his best interest to do so? Why did he go out of his way to make everyone think he had WMD's if he had none?

Afghanistan and Iraq proved that preemptive attacks and nation building in the name of antiterrorism dies not work.

Saddams provocations were petty and childish....hardly worthy of invasion