The Bush Administration Was "ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN" That Saddam Hussein Had WMDs

[Freewill]

There is one thing that so called republicans do that drive people like me crazy.

When anyone mentions that Obama was left to deal with the decisions and actions of Bush, rethugs go crazy saying how all the deficit spending is on Obama. Bush had nothing to do with it, almost.

But when it comes to the war of choice that Bush led us into, it suddenly becomes Bill Clintons' fault that we went to war with Iraq.

Hypocrites each and every rethug I know. You don't get to have it both ways.
Just because you put a big R next to your name, does not make you blameless for your decisions.

Here is some logic and maybe I can sooth your craziness.

1. In 2006 the democrats took over both houses of Congress. They were able, and did, anything they wanted to and ignored Bush. Not surprisingly that pretty much was the start of budgets not getting passed.

2. Bush warned them of the impending housing crisis, as mentioned, they ignored him and the regulators they have now fallen in love with.

3. The Iraq war was counted as causing the massive debt, yet the war ended and it appears we are not reaping dividends.

4. The spending bills, such as the prescription drug plan, was opposed by those on the right, it was a liberal bill that Bush should have never ever introduced. Remember how it was the conservatives that fought the automobile company take over?

5. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton. During the early days of his term he suffered the dot-com crash. The wind down from the hype of Y2K. But mostly he lead us through 9/11 with an unemployment rate around 5 percent until the above mentioned take over by democrats then the economy dipped.

6. The biggest thing that democrats hit Bush on is the Iraq war. They belittle those who voluntarily sacrificed their time and sometimes life to winning the war. And they do it ignoring that their own party voted for action in Iraq. Then when we take the action, after announcing "shock and awe" they pretend to be surprised. They are the liars.

 

[Britfire54]

Saddam was absolutely certain he had WMDS too.

Even if for the sake of argument, he did have them, it is still illegal to attack him over a stockpile of weapons.

There is only 2 legal ways to attack another country with military force.

if you, yourself, are attacked
you receive UNSC authorization to do so​

And that's it! Anything else, is no different than the nazis going into Poland.

So, if the UN drags its heels, the security of nations across the globe can become meaningless ?

Did the War on Terror depend upon UN bureaucracy for its existence ?

Most to the point, are you saying that every nation on earth must go, cap in hand, for 'permission' to defend its interests, the US included ?

Scenario: a bunch of terrorists attacks the US. They don't represent any one country, in fact, they may all originate from several countries. In this scenario, according to you, is the US forbidden to act in the furtherance of its interests unless the UN sanctions that ?

If 'yes' (which would be an outrageous answer !), then this would place any President, and any US Government, in an impossible situation, because I'd have thought it would be their responsibility to defend America from its enemies. A 'yes' answer must surely mean that the UN has the power to force the impeachment of any President who tries to do his duty.

 

[Billo_Really]

Yes he was definately convinced that the Iraqis had WMD's.

No, he was not convinced! And it doesn't matter how many times you tell that lie, it won't become true. If you're "convinced" of something, you don't go out "fishing" for evidence to validate your conviction. Being "convinced", means you've already seen that information.

Just 10 days after he was inaugarated in January of 2001, Bush said in his first security meeting, he wanted to take Hussein out and wanted them to go out and find the evidence to make it happen.

Saddam's removal is top item of Bush's inaugural national security meeting. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill later recalls, "It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying, 'Go find me a way to do this.'" [Date the public knew: 1/10/04]

That is not being convinced! That is being antithical to the principles this country was founded upon.

 

[Britfire54]

Yes he was definately convinced that the Iraqis had WMD's.

No, he was not convinced! And it doesn't matter how many times you tell that lie, it won't become true. If you're "convinced" of something, you don't go out "fishing" for evidence to validate your conviction. Being "convinced", means you've already seen that information.

Just 10 days after he was inaugarated in January of 2001, Bush said in his first security meeting, he wanted to take Hussein out and wanted them to go out and find the evidence to make it happen.

Saddam's removal is top item of Bush's inaugural national security meeting. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill later recalls, "It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying, 'Go find me a way to do this.'" [Date the public knew: 1/10/04]

That is not being convinced! That is being antithical to the principles this country was founded upon.

I believe he was convinced. Certainly, his Dem predecessors were !

But even if he WASN'T, the point was that there was reason for suspecting he had them. The UN's efforts, over many years, were undertaken to establish the truth of this one way or the other.

And those efforts ultimately got nowhere, forcing a decision: does Saddam get away with being permanently unaccountable for the WMD stocks situation, or, does the threat of his retaining them require his regime to be finally dealt with ?

Inaction would've been disastrous for two reasons. First, Saddam would've got the message that he could keep WMD's without consequences occurring. He could retain some. He could build some. He could create whatever stockpile he chose, and know the world would permit it.

Second, every imaginable tinpot dictator WOULD'VE GOT EXACTLY THE SAME MESSAGE. PROLIFERATION WOULD'VE BEEN UNSTOPPABLE.

Therefore, the 2003 invasion HAD to happen.

 

[Billo_Really]

So, if the UN drags its heels, the security of nations across the globe can become meaningless ?

They weren't dragging their heals! They had a team of UN inspectors actively looking for WMD's in that country. That's not "dragging heals", that's doing something about a perceived problem.

Did the War on Terror depend upon UN bureaucracy for its existence ?

The WOT depended on brain-dead creton's thinking you can actually have a war against a "tactic" and not a tangible enemy, like a nation-state that attacked yours.

They didn't call WWII, "war on blitzkreig!"

Most to the point, are you saying that every nation on earth must go, cap in hand, for 'permission' to defend its interests, the US included ?

I'm saying ever since the end of WWII, going to war over what "interests" a nation, has been deemed a "crime against humanity".

England attacked the colonies to protect its interests.
Mexico attacked Texas to protect its interests.
Germany attacked Poland and Hungary to protect its interests.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor to protect its interests.​

Scenario: a bunch of terrorists attacks the US. They don't represent any one country, in fact, they may all originate from several countries. In this scenario, according to you, is the US forbidden to act in the furtherance of its interests unless the UN sanctions that ?

I have no interest in discussing hypotheticals as a reason to attack sovereign nations. Especially one that conveniently leaves out the root causes of that terrorism.

The 19 hijackers that attacked us on 9/11, were from Saudi Arabia. Why didn't we attack them?

If 'yes' (which would be an outrageous answer !), then this would place any President, and any US Government, in an impossible situation, because I'd have thought it would be their responsibility to defend America from its enemies. A 'yes' answer must surely mean that the UN has the power to force the impeachment of any President who tries to do his duty.

 

[Billo_Really]

I believe he was convinced. Certainly, his Dem predecessors were !

I don't argue against peoples beliefs.

You're free to believe whatever you want.

But even if he WASN'T, the point was that there was reason for suspecting he had them. The UN's efforts, over many years, were undertaken to establish the truth of this one way or the other.

There was also reason to suspect he didn't have them.

And those efforts ultimately got nowhere, forcing a decision: does Saddam get away with being permanently unaccountable for the WMD stocks situation, or, does the threat of his retaining them require his regime to be finally dealt with ?

You got that backwards!

The "decision", from the "Decider", forced those efforts to go nowhere.

Inaction would've been disastrous for two reasons. First, Saddam would've got the message that he could keep WMD's without consequences occurring. He could retain some. He could build some. He could create whatever stockpile he chose, and know the world would permit it.

He didn't have any to retain and didn't have the infrastucture to make any more.

But I do agree, if he could've gotten them, he would've.

Second, every imaginable tinpot dictator WOULD'VE GOT EXACTLY THE SAME MESSAGE. PROLIFERATION WOULD'VE BEEN UNSTOPPABLE.

Therefore, the 2003 invasion HAD to happen.

Does that include the tinpot dictators we put into office, like Pinoche and the Shah of Iran?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It is so trite of you liberals to repeatedly claim to believe that the so-called War on Terror was EVER a war against a tactic.

There's no truth to that claim of yours.

You confuse the shorthand way of labeling the matter with the substance of what was actually intended.

 

[Desperado]

The Bush Administration Was "ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN" That Saddam Hussein Had WMDs

and Bush Was "ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN" That God Told Him to Invade Iraq

President George Bush has claimed he was told by God to invade Iraq and attack Osama bin Laden's stronghold of Afghanistan as part of a divine mission to bring peace to the Middle East, security for Israel, and a state for the Palestinians
Bush: God Told Me to Invade Iraq

Just because you are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN about something does not make it right.

 

[Billo_Really]

and Bush Was "ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN" That God Told Him to Invade Iraq

What a coincedence, Hitler thought his ascention to power was because of Devine intervention.

 

[Billo_Really]

It is so trite of you liberals to repeatedly claim to believe that the so-called War on Terror was EVER a war against a tactic.

There's no truth to that claim of yours.

You confuse the shorthand way of labeling the matter with the substance of what was actually intended.

Terror is a tactic in war, not a tangible enemy.

If terror is a tangible enemy, how do you know what it's VE day? Or VJ day?

 

[PredFan]

To the brain dead liberals:

No WMDs were found so that means none existed. Oh to live in such a simple world.

And these nitwits are deciding who gets to be POTUS.

We're fucked.

 

[jtpr312]

Yes he was definately convinced that the Iraqis had WMD's.

No, he was not convinced! And it doesn't matter how many times you tell that lie, it won't become true. If you're "convinced" of something, you don't go out "fishing" for evidence to validate your conviction. Being "convinced", means you've already seen that information.

Just 10 days after he was inaugarated in January of 2001, Bush said in his first security meeting, he wanted to take Hussein out and wanted them to go out and find the evidence to make it happen.

Saddam's removal is top item of Bush's inaugural national security meeting. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill later recalls, "It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying, 'Go find me a way to do this.'" [Date the public knew: 1/10/04]

That is not being convinced! That is being antithical to the principles this country was founded upon.

Here's the FACTS. He didn't need any WMD's to be in Iraq. Iraq broke the agreements of the cease fire that ended hostilities after the 1st Gulf war over and over and over again, and THAT is all the justification, legal and moral, that Bush needed to go into Iraq and clean their clocks for them, forget the fact that they fired on US Warplanes in pursuit of their UN related duties. Sadam played chicken and ended up at the end of a rope, along with hundreds of thousands of his fellow muslim scumbags.

 

[expatriate]

Even though I am a lifelong liberal democrat, and even though I was furious by the hanging chad debacle that put Dubya into office, I was absolutely 100% behind his actions in the immediate wake of 9/11. I was completely supportive of his invasion of Afghanistan to seek out and destroy the people who attacked us. I even wrote to the Department of the Navy asking to come back out of retirement and onto active duty to assist in the cause is any way they deemed appropriate. They said that I was just a tad too old, unfortunately. Bush lost me when he took his eye off the ball and began to make the focus Saddam instead of OBL. Saddam may very well have been an asshole, and a very bad man across the board, but the world is full of those types of leaders on nearly every continent, yet we have never been compelled to invade, conquer and occupy the nations those leaders rule, and we shouldn't have done so in Iraq, especially when our real enemies were still on the loose. In the wake of 9/11, as bad a man as Saddam was, he still was capable of doing three very important things better than we could do, and if we had let him continue doing them and concentrated on crushing AQ, the world would be better off today than we are now. 1.) Saddam kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another in Iraq. 2.)Saddam kept Islamic extremist organizations who targeted the US from using Iraq as a base of operations. 3.) And of equal importance, he was able to act as an effective foil against Iran's aspirations of regional hegemony. Invading Iraq was a mistake that erased the support the entire world had for us after September 11th. For his mis-leadership in that endeavor, Bush will always be at the top of my "worst presidents ever" list.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It is so trite of you liberals to repeatedly claim to believe that the so-called War on Terror was EVER a war against a tactic.

There's no truth to that claim of yours.

You confuse the shorthand way of labeling the matter with the substance of what was actually intended.

Terror is a tactic in war, not a tangible enemy.

If terror is a tangible enemy, how do you know what it's VE day? Or VJ day?

Terrorism is a tactic. Those that employ it are the enemy.

Try to keep up with the adults.

We know when the enemy is defeated, you simpleton, when they cannot and do not engage in terrorism against us anymore.

 

[expatriate]

It is so trite of you liberals to repeatedly claim to believe that the so-called War on Terror was EVER a war against a tactic.

There's no truth to that claim of yours.

You confuse the shorthand way of labeling the matter with the substance of what was actually intended.

Terror is a tactic in war, not a tangible enemy.

If terror is a tangible enemy, how do you know what it's VE day? Or VJ day?

Terrorism is a tactic. Those that employ it are the enemy.

Try to keep up with the adults.

We know when the enemy is defeated, you simpleton, when they cannot and do not engage in terrorism against us anymore.

if everyone who employs terrorism is our enemy, why didn't we invade Sri Lanka and go after the Tamil Tigers, or Ireland and the IRA, or Italy and the Red Guard, or Peru and the SHining Path? Our invasion of Afghanistan was rational because AQ was our real enemy. THe invasion of Iraq was not because Saddam was not.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Terror is a tactic in war, not a tangible enemy.

If terror is a tangible enemy, how do you know what it's VE day? Or VJ day?

Terrorism is a tactic. Those that employ it are the enemy.

Try to keep up with the adults.

We know when the enemy is defeated, you simpleton, when they cannot and do not engage in terrorism against us anymore.

if everyone who employs terrorism is our enemy, why didn't we invade Sri Lanka and go after the Tamil Tigers, or Ireland and the IRA, or Italy and the Red Guard, or Peru and the SHining Path? Our invasion of Afghanistan was rational because AQ was our real enemy. THe invasion of Iraq was not because Saddam was not.

There are lots of enemies in the world we don't go after.

The ones who went after us, however, earned our attention.

Saddam had WMDs as far as we knew. He also had some connections to and with al qaeda. There wee lots of reasons to go after him including making the rest of the war against the shit like al qaeda in Afghanistan a bit easier.

You are not alone in concluding that the war in Iraq was a pure blunder. You might be right. But then again, you might be wrong. Either way, that discussion has nothing to do with my refutation of the claim that we are fighting a war against a "tactic." That remains a bullshit claim by the bullshit peddlers.

 

[Oldstyle]

Yes he was definately convinced that the Iraqis had WMD's.

No, he was not convinced! And it doesn't matter how many times you tell that lie, it won't become true. If you're "convinced" of something, you don't go out "fishing" for evidence to validate your conviction. Being "convinced", means you've already seen that information.

Just 10 days after he was inaugarated in January of 2001, Bush said in his first security meeting, he wanted to take Hussein out and wanted them to go out and find the evidence to make it happen.

Saddam's removal is top item of Bush's inaugural national security meeting. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill later recalls, "It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying, 'Go find me a way to do this.'" [Date the public knew: 1/10/04]

That is not being convinced! That is being antithical to the principles this country was founded upon.

And we know this because a former member of the Bush Administration who was fired from his job...became an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration and then wanted to sell some copies of the book he wrote? Just how many books do you think Paul O'Neil sells if he doesn't make a charge like that? A couple dozen to family and friends?

I take sources like Paul O'Neil with a grain of salt, Loinboy. He had a monetary incentive to say something controversial and he had an axe to grind against his former employer. That makes for a bad combination if you're looking for an unbiased opinion...but then again...you're not really looking for an unbiased opinion...you're looking for one that corresponds to your take on the world, so Paul O'Neil's book was aimed directly at folks like you.

 

[GWV5903]

Moreover, that he was determined to use them.

We now know that was a blatant LIE.

Here's some of the gems that brought us to war with the wrong country for the wrong reasons. These are all quotes...

Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

With all that alleged certainty, you don't just NOT be able to prove it. They lied to us, and they lied repeatedly and for a singular purpose of getting the country in a frame of mind to go to war.

How do the Republicans of USMB reconcile this? What's your response?

How do the Stupid Liberals of USMB reconcile this? Proof positive that you can't fix stupid...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk]Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction) - YouTube[/ame]

More Proof...

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

Marc, loinboy and the rest of the desparate Stupid Liberal Left, what should be done with your leadership, hell they are the ones who passed this belief along...

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Moreover, that he was determined to use them.

We now know that was a blatant LIE.

Here's some of the gems that brought us to war with the wrong country for the wrong reasons. These are all quotes...

Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

With all that alleged certainty, you don't just NOT be able to prove it. They lied to us, and they lied repeatedly and for a singular purpose of getting the country in a frame of mind to go to war.

How do the Republicans of USMB reconcile this? What's your response?

Its a well known fact that Bush knew there were no WMD'S in Iraq and invaded anyways.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Moreover, that he was determined to use them.

We now know that was a blatant LIE.

Here's some of the gems that brought us to war with the wrong country for the wrong reasons. These are all quotes...

Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

With all that alleged certainty, you don't just NOT be able to prove it. They lied to us, and they lied repeatedly and for a singular purpose of getting the country in a frame of mind to go to war.

How do the Republicans of USMB reconcile this? What's your response?

So was clinton before him, and just about every dimwit in congress before it became a political point to prove how stupid the dimwits can be.