PROOF Bush LIED about Iraq!

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
Hell no. Of course not. As super group as Al-Queda was, they could not rally the "martyrs" of the world under one ideal. However, Al-Queda was more wide spread than people think.

Our intel places some Islamic groups inside the Middle East with Al-Queda, because since Iraq began, they have dissapeared or dissipated into Al-Queda to be a part of the insurgency. Terror groups in other countries have joined forces with Al-Queda. An example of this would be the Bali bombings. The Indonesian Government has looked the other way with regards to their extremist problems, because they didn't wish to antagonize them. There are two seperate groups inside Indonesia. There is the home grown Islamic group and Al-Queda has a base of operations there. The Bali bombings was a collaberation of the two and it gave the fraction of their government the excuse they have been waiting for. In other countries there has been reports that Al-Queda has local influence.

As for your first question (rhetorical statement)...it's actually a good question. They do not exist as they once did. Al-Queda, while still being some what organized, is fractured and splintered. They still have influence upon others that wish to find favor with God (used by Bin Laden), they mostly serve as an idea for other terror groups that are determined to achieve their heights of success. This is why we must continue our efforts all over the world while still aggressively (diplomatically) persuing and encouraging change in the Middle East.

I'm all for diplomacy. Thank you.

 

[oldreliable67]

The Congressional vote was a mute point because Bush had already started the war nine months before.

Are you still asserting that the increased bombing in the no-fly zone was a start to the war? Do you have any hint that others in positions of authority might think that as well? I"ve read the reports that you provided as link on a previous post, and it seems like a pretty weak assertion, IMO.

BTW, the word you were looking for is "moot", not "mute".

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
Are you still asserting that the increased bombing in the no-fly zone was a start to the war? Do you have any hint that others in positions of authority might think that as well? I"ve read the reports that you provided as link on a previous post, and it seems like a pretty weak assertion, IMO.

BTW, the word you were looking for is "moot", not "mute".

Thanks for the correction.

How can you say it is weak when you look at the amount (and nature) of ordinance that was dropped? And you didn't answer (or address) my question.

 

[ANAV]

Also, starting a war prior to approvel from Congress is an impeachable offence. You omitted a line that was the premise of that statement. Was that by design?

I'm I missing something here. There does not need be a formal declaration of war for hostilities per the "War Powers Resolution,"

Here is an exert;

Under the Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war and raise and support the armed forces (Article I, Section 8), while the President is Commander in Chief (Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that the Commander in Chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States and makes him responsible for leading the armed forces. During the Korean and Vietnam wars, the United States found itself involved for many years in undeclared wars. Many Members of Congress became concerned with the erosion of congressional authority to decide when the United States should become involved in a war or the use of armed forces that might lead to war. On November 7, 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148) over the veto of President Nixon.

The War Powers Resolution states that the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief to introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces. It requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American armed forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific congressional authorization. It also requires the President to report to Congress any introduction of forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities, Section 4(a)(1); into foreign territory while equipped for combat, Section 4(a)(2); or in numbers which substantially enlarge U.S. forces equipped for combat already in a foreign nation, Section 4(a)(3). Once a report is submitted "or required to be submitted" under Section 4(a)(1), Congress must authorize the use of forces within 60 to 90 days or the forces must be withdrawn. (For additional information, see CRS Report 96-476, The War Powers Resolution: Twenty-Two Years of Experience.)

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/81-050.htm

Notice the bold underlined portion. How is this war unconstitutional when authority was give per the Constitution? I'm no expert on this, I'm I missing something?

 

[aps]

Here is a quote from the attached link above;

Both the Senate Intelligence Committee and the presidential Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, which investigated the CIA’s pre-war claims about Iraq, concluded that the CIA did not distort intelligence for political reasons, but had simply made the wrong conclusions.

Eight Republicans and seven Democrats sit on Senate Intelligence Committee. The findings clearing state that the intelligence was not distorted for political reasons. So the issue as to weather Bush influenced the intelligence has been addressed and resolved.

If there was questionable content in the report and the lawmakers failed to read it but voted for the authorization of power, then how is that misleading them? And what did they thinking when they voted? "Just because we have overwhelming voted the use of force, we don't mean it?" The fact is they DID authorize it.

My bit about the Democrats not sticking up for Tenent while the Republicans are was to just illustrate how two faced both parties can be.

I do blame Congress for not reading all the material before they voted. Apparently, they would have seen a lot of dissent as to what Bush was alleging. However, that doesn't take away the fact that Bush presented the facts as though there was no dissent whatsoever. Think of it this way, your parents tell you that you were not adopted, but they have the adoption papers in their filing cabinet, which you have access to. You then tell everyone that you are not adopted. Have your parents misled you? Yup.

Congress gave the president the authority to invade Iraq. Does that mean that Bush HAD to invade Iraq? Nope.

Why should the democrats stand up for Tenet? Just because he was appointed by Clinton, a democrat? So people should support someone their party appointed no matter what? Frankly, I cannot stand when people let their politics affect their decision. I applaud them for not sticking up for Tenet. He didn't deserve it, although the president still awarded him with the highest civilian award. So Bush stood up for him. Isn't he loyal?

 

[ANAV]

I do blame Congress for not reading all the material before they voted. Apparently, they would have seen a lot of dissent as to what Bush was alleging. However, that doesn't take away the fact that Bush presented the facts as though there was no dissent whatsoever. Think of it this way, your parents tell you that you were not adopted, but they have the adoption papers in their filing cabinet, which you have access to. You then tell everyone that you are not adopted. Have your parents misled you? Yup.

Comparing adoption to going to war? But comparing Congress to kids is an interesting analogy. At least we agree on the that the majority of Congress was grossly neglagent in not doing its research before voting on possibly the biggest vote, with the biggest ramification, in their time on the hill. Their consituents should hold them accountable during the next election.

Congress gave the president the authority to invade Iraq. Does that mean that Bush HAD to invade Iraq? Nope

Inaction and empty threats are what the bad guys into thinking America was a paper tiger. Did they think Bush was all talk in no action? Look at how fast Bush sent the troops in to deal with Afghanistan where other presidents choose to ignore it. They either believed or did not believe Iraq was a serious threat threat that had to be dealt with. And they cast their votes accordingly.

 

[aps]

Comparing adoption to going to war? But comparing Congress to kids is an interesting analogy. At least we agree on the that the majority of Congress was grossly neglagent in not doing its research before voting on possibly the biggest vote, with the biggest ramification, in their time on the hill. Their consituents should hold them accountable during the next election.

My point was addressing the part of being misled, ANAV. I'm sorry you weren't able to see that.

I am keeping my fingers crossed that the republicans will especially be held accountable so that we can have a change in leadership in at least one of the houses.

Inaction and empty threats are what the bad guys into thinking America was a paper tiger. Did they think Bush was all talk in no action? Look at how fast Bush sent the troops in to deal with Afghanistan where other presidents choose to ignore it. They either believed or did not believe Iraq was a serious threat threat that had to be dealt with. And they cast their votes accordingly.

Ohhhhhhh puleeze, tell me when Saddam Hussein had threatened us. All of a sudden after 9-11, we feel threatened by the alleged WMDs that Iraq has? Shall I post the words that Bush used when he said that he wasn't really concerned about the mastermind of the September 11th attacks? Really? Al Qaeda kills more than 3000 people on American soil in one day and Bush isn't concerned about him? Instead, he's concerned about someone who hasn't threatened us. I see. Bush's invading Iraq has only hurt our credibility around the world.

Congress believed that Iraq was a threat because of the way Bush presented this supposed intelligence that they were reconstituting nuclear weapons.

*sigh* I should realize that I am talking to a brick wall. :2brickwal

 

[ANAV]

My point was addressing the part of being misled, ANAV. I'm sorry you weren't able to see that.

I am keeping my fingers crossed that the republicans will especially be held accountable so that we can have a change in leadership in at least one of the houses.



Ohhhhhhh puleeze, tell me when Saddam Hussein had threatened us. All of a sudden after 9-11, we feel threatened by the alleged WMDs that Iraq has? Shall I post the words that Bush used when he said that he wasn't really concerned about the mastermind of the September 11th attacks? Really? Al Qaeda kills more than 3000 people on American soil in one day and Bush isn't concerned about him? Instead, he's concerned about someone who hasn't threatened us. I see. Bush's invading Iraq has only hurt our credibility around the world.

Congress believed that Iraq was a threat because of the way Bush presented this supposed intelligence that they were reconstituting nuclear weapons.

*sigh* I should realize that I am talking to a brick wall. :2brickwal

If you want to make this personal and insulting just let me know. When did Saddam threaten us? How about a plot to kill a former President?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm

How about Iraqi continually firing upon US planes in the now fly zone? How about Iraq snubbing several UN resolutions? How about Iraq harboring known terrorists that have taken American lives?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/abuabbas_04-16-03.html

And it's not Bush invading Iraq, it's Congress giving Bush the Constitutionally legal authority to make it happen. It not just a majority that is required for the authorization for the use of force, it's a two thirds vote required. And you talk as if the people in Congress are mindless idiots that cannot do research and think for themselves. Some of the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee voted for the authorization and it's there job to by critical of the intelligence gathered. If Democrats just said "Yep it must be true, Bush said so" then Social Security reform would of been passed, there would be no judicial hearings, and so on.....

Bush invading Iraq has strengthened our credibility. No more will terrorists and hostile regimes think that America will stand passively by. They know we mean business until another wimping President gets put in office.

 

[ChristopherHall]

Since when did the US become the UN's lap dog? We should NEVER send AMERICAN soldiers to die to enforce UN Resolutions!!!!

The UN is such a bastion of corruption it makes me sick to think that we have become their police force. If the UN resolutions were to be enforced, boys wearing blue helmets should have invaded Iraq.

This is just another example as to why we should get OUT of the UN!

"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she (America) goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." - John Quincy Adams, 1821

Get off the Neo-Conservative, double talk, brain washed, talking points and stand for true Conservatism!

In one breath you Neo-Cons tell us that the UN is a corrupt organization full of scandal and coverup, and it is! Then you turn around and defend an unConstitutional war by indicating that America had to enforce UN resolutions????

Where are the real conservatives?!

I'm tired of talking to phonies.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ANAV:
How about Iraqi continually firing upon US planes in the now fly zone?

If you dropped that much ordinance (600 bombs) in my backyard, I would shoot at you too!

 

[KCConservative]

Maybe you should brush up on English 101. Your comprehension skills are a little lacking. As I stated before, I will answer this question when you find the WMD's.

I assume you will point out what is lacking in my English. Not sure what you were meaning by this.

Why do you want the WMD to be found before you answer a question? I don't get it. I don;t know where the WMD went. I hope to God we find out someday, but until then, please don't duck the debate questions. Here it is again: Explain for us how "knowing where they are" and them not being there once we arrives constitutes a lie.

We knew where they were. When we arrived, they were gone. I see the quandry. I see the dire implications of missing WMD. But I don;t see the lie?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative
I assume you will point out what is lacking in my English. Not sure what you were meaning by this.

Why do you want the WMD to be found before you answer a question? I don't get it. I don;t know where the WMD went. I hope to God we find out someday, but until then, please don't duck the debate questions. Here it is again: Explain for us how "knowing where they are" and them not being there once we arrives constitutes a lie.

We knew where they were. When we arrived, they were gone. I see the quandry. I see the dire implications of missing WMD. But I don;t see the lie?

You didn't seem to be understanding my point. Maybe that was my fault for not being succinct. So let me put it this way.

I don't think you can say for certainty that there were WMD's without the evidence of such. You (nor Bush) have produced any shred of evidence of the existance of WMD's. Yet you want me to believe they existed at the time your infering. I'm saying they didn't exist at that time and it was wrong to carry on like they did.

Hans Blix final report says they hadn't had any since 1992. You combine that with the fact we haven't found any, then it is logical to assume there weren't any to begin with.

Do you really believe they could move something like that with all those UN inspectors running around their country? And right under our satellites noses? We would be able to spot a convoy.

So I'm saying, if you can't produce the evidence, your assertions are un-justified.

 

[MSgt]

I'm all for diplomacy. Thank you.

I wasn't going to respond to this because it was closed out, but it brings me to another point on diplomacy.

In the dark days of the Cold War, American strategists touted the notion of “rolling back” communism. In fact, we never rolled back much—at least until 1989—but did our best to hold the line. Most obvious places are Cuba, Vietnam and Korea. But “roll-back” may have been a strategy far ahead of its time, a concept waiting for more propitious circumstances. It appears to be eminently suited as an approach for dealing with violent Islamic extremism.

Arab populations are a minority within Islam, but their regressive form of religion has been poisoning one non-Arab state after another with an infusion of petrodollars, dogma and anti-Western vitriol. Three non-Arab countries, Indonesia, India and Pakistan, contain nearly half the world’s Muslims. Add those of Central Asia, Turkey, the Philippines, Malaysia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Azerbaijan and that struggling, vilified democracy, Iran, and the Arab states begin to look overvalued. If we want to roll back the inhumane variants of Islam and to promote constructive cooperation and the emergence of rule-of-law, market-driven states, then we should turn our energies to the lands of possibility, rather than wasting further efforts on Arab states utterly opposed to reform. If we really believe that Islam is a great world religion, we need to treat it as such and engage it where it is still developing--on its vibrant frontiers, not in its arthritic Arab homelands.

Militarily, we need to act and continue to act in places like Indonesia, Phillipines, the Balkans, Africa, and so many other places on the fringes of this Arab spreading of hatred fueled ideology. Currently, we are doing this and more with the help and cooperation of these governments. Every time Al-Queda desperately demonstrates to their people that they are still a force to be reckoned with by killing their own people, they sew their own demise. This is one of the differences between an "apocalyptic" terrorist and the "practical" terrorist. (There are other differences.) Even Al-Jazeera can't imply that Americans or Israeli Jews were behind the bombings in Jordan or the slaughters in Iraq by fellow Muslims when they occur before their very eyes. In the Middle East, even though a possible punitive strike to Syria may be in order, further military action will be counter productive, with the exception of Iran's future nuclear sites. The people of the Middle East are watching Iraq. It is very probable that the population of Iran and Syria change on their own and continued aggressive and pressured diplomacy with current governments is a must to ensure this. As for Saudi Arabia.....don't waste your time hoping against hope.

 

[MSgt]

Ohhhhhhh puleeze, tell me when Saddam Hussein had threatened us. All of a sudden after 9-11, we feel threatened by the alleged WMDs that Iraq has? Shall I post the words that Bush used when he said that he wasn't really concerned about the mastermind of the September 11th attacks? Really? Al Qaeda kills more than 3000 people on American soil in one day and Bush isn't concerned about him? Instead, he's concerned about someone who hasn't threatened us. I see. Bush's invading Iraq has only hurt our credibility around the world.

Congress believed that Iraq was a threat because of the way Bush presented this supposed intelligence that they were reconstituting nuclear weapons.

The facts are that Saddam was a threat to us long before 9/11 and it had nothing to do with WMD. You're still determined to focus on what isn't important. The civilization in the Middle East must change. Iraq is no longer a threat to us. Currently, The "House of Saud," Syria, and Iran are still threats and until they change, our securities are vulnerable. Syria and Iran have the capacity to change on their own. They would not have this capacity with Saddam sitting between them and a democratic Iraq is enticing to the millions of youth in these countries that are disenchanted with their Mullahs and oppressions.

 

[aps]

The facts are that Saddam was a threat to us long before 9/11 and it had nothing to do with WMD. You're still determined to focus on what isn't important. The civilization in the Middle East must change. Iraq is no longer a threat to us. Currently, The "House of Saud," Syria, and Iran are still threats and until they change, our securities are vulnerable. Syria and Iran have the capacity to change on their own. They would not have this capacity with Saddam sitting between them and a democratic Iraq is enticing to the millions of youth in these countries that are disenchanted with their Mullahs and oppressions.

Based upon my own assessment, when Bush was pushing this war in 2002 and 2003, it was based upon Iraq having WMDs and how they were an imminent threat to us.

 

[KCConservative]

Based upon my own assessment, when Bush was pushing this war in 2002 and 2003, it was based upon Iraq having WMDs and how they were an imminent threat to us.

Correct. And when we finally got there, they had been moved. God help us if we don't find them soon.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

God help us if we don't find them soon.

We're no longer looking.

 

[KCConservative]

We're no longer looking.

link please

 

[KCConservative]

We're no longer looking.

I suppose you are correct, technically. We have turned over the search to the Iraqis.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said though the search for WMD yielded no results, the United States, based on "extensive intelligence," believed before it invaded Iraq that Saddam was intent on acquiring them.

A State Department program has employed about 120 Iraqi scientists with expertise in WMD to undertake research in other fields of science, he said.

A spokesman for the British Foreign Office said that though the physical search is over, some work continues.

"The hunt for WMD will continue under whatever authority is in charge, right now the Iraqi interim government," he said

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
The facts are that Saddam was a threat to us long before 9/11 and it had nothing to do with WMD. You're still determined to focus on what isn't important. The civilization in the Middle East must change. Iraq is no longer a threat to us. Currently, The "House of Saud," Syria, and Iran are still threats and until they change, our securities are vulnerable. Syria and Iran have the capacity to change on their own. They would not have this capacity with Saddam sitting between them and a democratic Iraq is enticing to the millions of youth in these countries that are disenchanted with their Mullahs and oppressions.

They barely had running water and electricity. They were not a threat to anyone. Read Hans Blix final report.

 

[oldreliable67]

They barely had running water and electricity.

Who is 'they', Billo? 'They' certainly had running water and electricity a-plenty for Saddam's palaces and his weapons plants. Unfortunately, the Iraqi people didn't have a heckuva lot of the same.

Saddam banked billions from Oil-for-Food while Iraqi's suffered.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
Who is 'they', Billo? 'They' certainly had running water and electricity a-plenty for Saddam's palaces and his weapons plants. Unfortunately, the Iraqi people didn't have a heckuva lot of the same.

Saddam banked billions from Oil-for-Food while Iraqi's suffered.

Even today, as I write this, they [Iraqi citizens] do not have 24/7 electrical power. So what are you talking about?

Also, I like how you dodged my other question.

 

[oldreliable67]

Billo,

Under Saddam, the only people that had electricity 24/7 was Saddam's elite and those lucky enough to be in the immediate area. The general populace did not have electricity 24/7 since prior to the first Gulf War. Since the first Gulf War, Saddam rebuilt infrastructure only to the extent that it benefited Saddam, his minions and his military. The billions in proceeds from Oil-for-Food that should have gone into humanitarian aid for the Iraqi people funded Saddam's lifestyle and personal bank accounts. Thats what I'm talking about.

I ignored your last point because it is, well, without a point. I've read Hans Blix's reports - all of them. What is your assertion here? To which part of his last report are you referring? A little more specificity would be helpful.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
Billo,

Under Saddam, the only people that had electricity 24/7 was Saddam's elite and those lucky enough to be in the immediate area. The general populace did not have electricity 24/7 since prior to the first Gulf War. Since the first Gulf War, Saddam rebuilt infrastructure only to the extent that it benefited Saddam, his minions and his military. The billions in proceeds from Oil-for-Food that should have gone into humanitarian aid for the Iraqi people funded Saddam's lifestyle and personal bank accounts. Thats what I'm talking about.

We bombed that country back to the stone age in the first Persian Gulf war. After that, they were effectively nuetered.

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
I ignored your last point because it is, well, without a point. I've read Hans Blix's reports - all of them. What is your assertion here? To which part of his last report are you referring? A little more specificity would be helpful.

This wasn't what I was refering too about ignoring. But since you want a Hans Blix clarification, I'll give you one. In his final report, as you say you have read, he states Iraq did not have the capability to build any WMD since 1992. So if they are not even capable of doing that, why are they being accused of hiding something they couldn't build in the first place?

Now, what your not answering is how do you consider dropping 600 bombs no-fly zone enforcement? And why would Iraq not have the right to defend themselves while you were dropping 600 bombs on their f_cking heads?

That is not no-fly zone enforcement!
That, is an act of war!

 

[oldreliable67]

This wasn't what I was refering too about ignoring.

Ah, sorry, the context in which your 'ignoring' question was placed led me astray.

We did indeed bomb Iraq quite a lot during Gulf War I. But did you see any of the video or photos of Saddam's palace's, all built after the Gulf War I? "Bombed back to the stone age"? "Effectively neutered"? The gold-plated faucets certainly weren't in a dingy cave. The nice new shiny batteries of Roland missiles (French mfg) weren't exactly caveman-type axes. The batteries of missiles that exceeded the agreed-upon range limit weren't exactly slings and stones. Remember those videos and photos, among others? Anybody that believes that, left alone, within 5 years Saddam would not have been actively seeking nukes is being completely fatuous.

And why would Iraq not have the right to defend themselves while you were dropping 600 bombs on their f_cking heads?

Hey, they're the folks that entered into written cease fire agreements with the UN and the coalition forces at the end of Gulf War I. They can do whatever they want, including actions that effectively abrogate those agreements, as they did many, many times. Of course, if they do/when they did, we will/did respond as we think/thought best. Some of those times included Clinton ordering bombing retaliation. BTW, what was their response while we were dropping bombs on their &^%$# heads? Do you know?

Billo, don't you think that if the bombing to which you are so vociferously referring was in any way an act of war, that the international community including France, Russia, Germany, etc., and the leftists around the globe would have been screaming bloody murder 2 years ago? This was not a secret. It is a well-known event. You're shouting about this as if you suddenly discovered the solution to Fermatt's theorem. Which it ain't.