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

[Oldstyle]

Barry, Harry and Nancy tell you that if you just let them raise taxes "a little bit more" then everything will be fine...and you actually believe them. It's amusing to watch.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I don't object to being called a liberal. It's a liberal country founded on the principles of liberalism. Why would anyone object to that?

I do love how you on the right say the word "liberal", in the same vain as the f-word.

I didn't say YOU were one of the liberals who objects to being called a liberal, first of all.

But this is not a "liberal" country and it was not founded by "liberals." It was founded by revolutionaries and that's not synonymous with "liberal."

Neither was this Republic founded on principles of "liberalism. In point of fact, the principles upon which this Republic was founded are principles which many of you liberals today oppose.

Why DO lots of liberals object to being called liberals? Ask them, kid.

I love how you liberals tend to over-generalize. But I'll tell you what. SOME aspects of what used to be referred to as political "liberalism" are highly worthy things. Many are far from it. I suppose the description by conservatives of many of you liberals AS "liberals" is offensive to so many of you liberals due to the numerous attributes of "liberalism" which are so different from what it used to mean.

Sure it is.

lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
a. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
b. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n.
1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.
liberal - definition of liberal by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

That's the problem with you folks. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

Speak English. That's what we speak in this country.

No it's not. And you have proved that it is you and other liberals who have either no fucking idea what you're talking about or you lie for the sake of convenience.

And your political ideology doesn't pass the tests in the definition you offered.

You folks are as rigid and orthodox as hell in some ways and unbound by the very Constitutional provisions which is designed to limit the power of government. You generally tend to be quite narrow-minded, too.

The Founders and Framers would be astounded by most of modern day "liberalism" and embarrassed that you claim their mantle.

 

[Britfire54]

By that reckoning, then, America should never have attacked Afghanistan, either. After all, did Afghanistan, AS A NATION STATE, attack America ?

No it did not. Therefore, attacking Afghanistan was illegal according to international law.

Got it. So, the terrorist training camps should've been left alone, then ? Find me a Muslim terrorist who'd fail to be delighted with your support of what Al Qaeda was up to, and this, AGAINST THE US, AND THE WEST.

I suppose all of Al Qaeda's terrorist training camps should've been left alone, then, free to this very day to train thousands MORE terrorists to commit multiple '9/11's' ??

If we would just remove our military from the ME, they wouldn't have any reason to train terrorists.
You only attack, when you, yourself, are attacked.

The terrorist training camps weren't defending against previous attacks. They existed to train to LAUNCH ATTACKS.

Tell me, then, of the previous '9/11 equivalent' that Al Qaeda was responding to, on 11th September 2001 !

Being linked to terrorists as been completely debunked and he had no WMD's after 1993.

Saddam's harbouring Zarqawi was untrue ? You're claiming this ?

Saddam's bankrolling of Hamas was untrue ? You're claiming this as well ?

You say he had no WMD's after 1993. REALLY ? State the basis for your certainty, and while you're doing that, show me why the UN took a different line. How come THEY didn't believe that to be true, and set about arranging their farcical inspections, many years later ?

But I suspect that nothing will dissuade you from the belief that Saddam deserved to be protected. Forget his shiftiness over WMD's. Forget the brutalities of his regime, the gassing of the Kurds, the mass graves, even the rape rooms. Forget his enthusiasm for predatory invasions of neighbouring Nation States.

This whole "taking out Hussein because he was a bad guy" thing, really doesn't wash. We knew just how bad he was 20 years earlier when we were selling him arms to fight the Iranians. If that was the reason to take him out, why didn't we do it back then?

Two points. One, I believe the US saw Saddam as an ally against a virulent outbreak of Muslim extremism, as represented by Iran, after the Shah was deposed. Two, I suggest you make up your mind about how well Saddam was armed. You claim certainty about his lack of weaponry, but when it suits you, you acknowledge how WELL he was being armed by the US. And you do this, lacking proof of weapons disposals or destructions by 1993.

But I will tell you what I will forget, is this phoney caring you're showing for the Iraqi people. We both know you don't give a shit about them. You certainly don't care about the over 1 million of them that died as a result of our invasion.

I see. You claim clairvoyance, or mind-reading abilities ?

I can turn your argument around. Your argument is one which says Saddam should never have been attacked. Which would've left Iraq with - - what ? MORE mass graves ? MORE invasions of nearby Nation States, in the fullness of time ? MORE gas attacks, from WMD's he, er'm, 'didn't have' ? MORE 'rape rooms' ?

And all this within an environment where democratic freedoms have all the likelihood of thriving of a snowball in hell ??

WHERE IS YOUR CONCERN FOR THE FATE OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE ? YOU WON'T EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE SADDAM'S OWN CULPABILITY FOR IRAQ'S FATE !

No, forget ALL of that, because attacking Bush is FAR more fun ... eh ?

Tell me more about 'moral stances' ... please ...

If you want to consider Bush being held accountable for the crimes he committed in office an "attack", so be it.

I call it justice, which, BTW, is a moral stance.

WHAT 'crimes' ??? Fighting a War on Terror - this, to you, is a 'crime' ????

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Wrong. It wasn't Bush's call to decide unilaterally for the UNSC, if Hussein violated the terms of previous resolutions.

As far as firing on US warplanes, those planes were bombing the shit out of the country. That's not no-fly zone enforcement, that's trying to provoke a war.

Better read up a bit on the terms of the Cease Fire that stopped hostilities after the first Gulf War son. Wrong, the planes where engaged in their legal duties of ENFORCING the terms of the cease fire when fired upon. You can whine, bitch and cry all you want the FACT is Bush had all the legal and moral authority he needed to go into Iraq and wax their asses, which he did.

The UN did not authorize the no-fly zone in either the north or the south. In fact the Secretary-General of the UN called them illegal.

 

[BlindBoo]

I remember clearly how much the media was on the side of the president and Congress about attacking Iraq and ensuring their WMDs were disarmed or destroyed.

They even reported on Hussein's gassing the Kurds as proof of his capabilities.

Isn't it great how liberals and lefties conveniently forget history.

Much of the media? How about all the so called liberal media was in-bed with the US military and all were gung ho for the ratings it was bringing. MSNBC even fired Donahue ove his opposition to the planned invasion and occupation. They are culpable along with every single Senator and Representative who abdicated their constitutional responsibility by voting in favor of letting President Bush have the deciding power to invade or not. They should have all resigned in disgrace when the occupation began and it became clear that Iraq was not an imediate threat to the USA nor were they involved with the 9-11-2001 atttacks.

 

[SAYIT]

Not too hard as most of what you say is BS.

No, you only got me there.

At least I have the integrity to admit when I'm wrong.

Really? Like you did after you falsely claimed the Taliban offered to turn over Bin Laden to the US? Oh, wait ... you never did admit that gaffe. You just covered it with more bogus "facts."

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Wrong. It wasn't Bush's call to decide unilaterally for the UNSC, if Hussein violated the terms of previous resolutions.

As far as firing on US warplanes, those planes were bombing the shit out of the country. That's not no-fly zone enforcement, that's trying to provoke a war.

Better read up a bit on the terms of the Cease Fire that stopped hostilities after the first Gulf War son. Wrong, the planes where engaged in their legal duties of ENFORCING the terms of the cease fire when fired upon. You can whine, bitch and cry all you want the FACT is Bush had all the legal and moral authority he needed to go into Iraq and wax their asses, which he did.

The UN did not authorize the no-fly zone in either the north or the south. In fact the Secretary-General of the UN called them illegal.

In actuality, the international law "legality" of the imposed "no fly zones" was questionable. The Secretary General is and was entitled to state his opinion, but his opinion does not constitute "fact."

See, generally, http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/v...hat legal authority impose no fly zones iraq" starting at pdf p. 48.

 

[BlindBoo]

I remember clearly how much the media was on the side of the president and Congress about attacking Iraq and ensuring their WMDs were disarmed or destroyed.

They even reported on Hussein's gassing the Kurds as proof of his capabilities.

Isn't it great how liberals and lefties conveniently forget history.

let me get this straight... we are attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11/01 and we used that attack as reasonable justification to invade Afghanistan and go after OBL and his gang of terrorists who had been harbored by the government there. THEN.... before we finished THAT job, we used the fact that Saddam had gassed kurds a quarter of a century EARLIER as justification for putting our hunt for OBL on the back burner and immediately and precipitously invading, conquering and occupying Iraq. Yeah.... that makes sense. NOT!

Seems you are leaving out some important facts. And it is irresponsible to make a determoination of what took place without using all of the facts.....

Now....you started off with facts.....you said....

"we are attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11/01 and we used that attack as reasonable justification to invade Afghanistan and go after OBL and his gang of terrorists who had been harbored by the government there"

And yes, you are correct.

However, you then said....

"before we finished THAT job, we used the fact that Saddam had gassed kurds a quarter of a century EARLIER as justification for putting our hunt for OBL on the back burner and immediately and precipitously invading, conquering and occupying Iraq."

What you left out is the following...

"while we were doing our best to eliminate the al-quaeda threat to our lifestyle, Sadaam Hussein opted to test our strength by backtracking on the treaty he signed with us 10 years earlier and refused to allow inspectors FULL access to his government operations inclduing, but not limited to, any chemical weaponry he may be involved in developing. We warned him multiple times to abide by the terms of the treaty and whereas he gave an inch here and there, he refused to allow inspectors full access as he promised in the treaty. This concerned us as it concerned many other countries of the world....and seeing as he was a man that used chemical weapons on his own people, the fear of him using them on coalition forces that were spread throughtout the region prompted us, as well as many other countries to examine the intel of many countries and determine that an attack on his operations was necessary. We were not only going after the WMD's...we were going to put a stop to the threat of WMD production."

I wonder how you would have reacted if there were WMD's and they were used on our forces in the region...killing 10's of thousands of our soldiers...and finding out that our intel showed such WMD's existed and Hussein was in breach of his treaty ...and Bush opted to NOT put a stop to it?

Likely, your reaction would have been "Bush acted stupidly"

Just as folks like you would have said the Boston police acted stupidly if they did NOT insist on seeing ID of the man who broke into the houise and claimed to be the owner when, in fact, the owner was tied up in a chair behind the front door...and later found dead.

Iraq did not sign any treaty with us. We have seen Powell and Rice as late as 2001 declaring that Saddam had not reconstructed his WMD program and had not been able to rebuild his conventional army.

 

[SAYIT]

Quote: Originally Posted by Britfire54
I suppose all of Al Qaeda's terrorist training camps should've been left alone, then, free to this very day to train thousands MORE terrorists to commit multiple '9/11's' ??

Quote: Originally Posted by LoinBoy
If we would just remove our military from the ME, they wouldn't have any reason to train terrorists.



Uh-huh. And you know that the same way you are certain the Taliban would have been turned OBL over to the US:
"personal intuition, gut feelings, hairs on the back of your neck, little devils or angels sitting on your shoulders." - Crimson Tide

 

[BlindBoo]

If Congress did not give the President the authority to go into Iraq, then the President is unlikely to have made the military move against Saddam.

Hac1968 wants it to be a one-way street. He wants it to be "Congress gave the authority but the President didn't have to act on it. He chose to."

But Hac1968 doesn't care to acknowledge the flip side of that coin: "If Congress had not given the President the authority to do so, then the President probably could not have moved against Saddam."

So, let's educate poor deluded old Hac: Responsibility is STILL shared.

"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

1.defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
2.enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION-

1. reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and

2. acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Iraqi War Resolution : Roll Call Vote, Authorization of War in Iraq

Iraq was not a threat. UNSCR1441 was in effect and the chief inspector gave no report of obstruction by the Iraqis.

Iraq was not involved in 9-11.

The President was given the power to decide. Congress failed us.

 

[BlindBoo]

.

Either the buck stops with Bush, or it does not. Clearly, for some, it does not.

So much for personal responsibility, huh?

If Clinton had put us there, the conservatives would be screaming the the mountaintops, understandably.

.

You are still living in this fantasy world that things would have been better off if someone didn't do their job of enforcement. The United Nations didn't care to do their job. Seems someone ELSE refused to take on some "personal responsibility", so that others wouldn't feel so obligated .... and no discussion over what BUSH did would then become necessary. Go ahead talk some more about accepting personal responsibility, this thread is starting to drag out about as long as the United Nations refusal to do their job .... despite repeated attempts to get them involved.

Wasn't it UN sanctions on Iraq that these two top Bush official were praising?

Colin Powell: "Iraq has No WMDs and is Not a Threat" | Global Research TV

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

 

[BlindBoo]

And the final responsibility? Who made the final call?

Go ahead, you can answer. Everyone knows.

.

I suggest this.

Who made the final call ? Seems obvious to me. GW Bush did.

Who held the final responsibility for the necessity of invasion ? Easy. SADDAM DID.

Saddam had ample time and opportunity to FULLY comply with UN Resolution 1441, to say nothing of Resolutions passed before that one. But, Saddam always refused to fully comply.

There could ultimately be only one outcome from the consequences of such unreasonable (even 'baffling', IF there were no WMD's .. and we know that there were !!) intransigence. And GW Bush followed through, undertaking the only reasonable course of action which remained.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Bush did what true leaders do.....without concern of what is popular.

Bush was a great leader......and history will show this to be true.

The war was very popular, with good reason. The Bush administration and a culpable media had no problem winning over popular support.

 

[Billo_Really]

The war was very popular, with good reason. The Bush administration and a culpable media had no problem winning over popular support.

That's not true! It was not a popular war and the only way the media could make it seem that way, was by hardly reporting on the anti-war movement and rallys that were taking place all over thew world.

On February 15, 2003, the largest anti-war protest in history occured to protest the upcoming Iraq invasion that involved over 15 country's and over 15 million people.

But how did the media cover this? They gave it a 1:20 during their primetime news. Which is the same amount of time they gave a "pro-war" rally that day in Washington.


Now you tell me, which rally was the bigger event?


Pro-war rally in Washington







Anti-war rally in New York

 

[Lakhota]

Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) suggested on Saturday that former Vice President Dick Cheney will have to answer in the afterlife for his role in taking the country to war with Iraq.

"Congress will not hold anyone to blame," Jones said during a speech in Raleigh, N.C. "Lyndon Johnson's probably rotting in hell right now because of the Vietnam War, and he probably needs to move over for Dick Cheney."

GOP Congressman Says Dick Cheney Will Go To Hell For Iraq War (VIDEO) | TPM LiveWire

 

[Britfire54]

Not too hard as most of what you say is BS.

No, you only got me there.

At least I have the integrity to admit when I'm wrong.

Really? Like you did after you falsely claimed the Taliban offered to turn over Bin Laden to the US? Oh, wait ... you never did admit that gaffe. You just covered it with more bogus "facts."

Such an outrageous claim to have been made, Sayit ! My memory says that exactly the opposite was true. Bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum, to turn bin Laden over to the US. The Taliban REFUSED to comply.

 

[SAYIT]

No, you only got me there.

At least I have the integrity to admit when I'm wrong.

Really? Like you did after you falsely claimed the Taliban offered to turn over Bin Laden to the US? Oh, wait ... you never did admit that gaffe. You just covered it with more bogus "facts."

Such an outrageous claim to have been made, Sayit ! My memory says that exactly the opposite was true. Bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum, to turn bin Laden over to the US. The Taliban REFUSED to comply.

The Taliban countered Bush's demand with an offer to turn OBL over to a "3rd country" beyond the influence of American "pressure," an offer Bush rightly deemed inadequate but proving they knew of his whereabouts. When informed of his error LoinBoy claimed I was splitting hairs and assured the board that the undisclosed 3rd country would have surrendered OBL to the US. Needless to say he forgot to include how he knew that.

 

[jtpr312]

Not too hard as most of what you say is BS.

No, you only got me there.

At least I have the integrity to admit when I'm wrong.

Yes, one of the very, very few on this board. I applaud you for that.

 

[BlindBoo]

I guess I should have qualified that with it had popular support in the USA, given the quality of the so called liberal media. My bad.

Public Attitudes Toward the War in Iraq: 2003-2008 | Pew Research Center

The war was very popular, with good reason. The Bush administration and a culpable media had no problem winning over popular support.

That's not true! It was not a popular war and the only way the media could make it seem that way, was by hardly reporting on the anti-war movement and rallys that were taking place all over thew world.

On February 15, 2003, the largest anti-war protest in history occured to protest the upcoming Iraq invasion that involved over 15 country's and over 15 million people.

But how did the media cover this? They gave it a 1:20 during their primetime news. Which is the same amount of time they gave a "pro-war" rally that day in Washington.


Now you tell me, which rally was the bigger event?


Pro-war rally in Washington







Anti-war rally in New York

 

[CMike]

Actually Sudan offered to give OBL to Clinton. Clinton declined.

On Tape, Clinton Admits Passing Up bin Laden Capture; Lewinsky Played Role

During a February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., saying, "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him."

But that wasn't exactly true. By 1996, the 9/11 mastermind had already been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by prosecutors in New York.

The link also provide a radio interview that Clinton made admitting he refused to take custody of OBL when Sudan offered him.

 

[expatriate]

Being an unindicted co-conspirator is not sufficient justification to incarcerate a foreign national oN foreign soil.