Question about Iraq..

[BigDog]

Even if we ignore the hyperbolic references to mushroom clouds and sliping in ***** when the CIA warned not to, Bush and his people seriously hyped the threat without the goods to back up what they said.

it would seem the only flaw in your argument is that people from the other side of the isle did the exact same thing.....even before Bush ever took office.....

Not a flaw at all. You seem to think I care about sides of the isle. I care about the truth and am not loyal to any party. Not on this. Again, saying stuff means nothing; evidence matters.

Looks like your assertion that Bush hyped things is a bit off. Maybe he was just following the advice of the administration before him.

Same as above. Remember there was nothing new in the NIE before the war then under Clinton, only the conclusion was different. So, as much as you want to blame him, he seems to have known how to lie without killing anyone. Bush on the other hand said things the evidence did not support. As I point out:

Even if we ignore the hyperbolic references to mushroom clouds and sliping in ***** when the CIA warned not to, Bush and his people seriously hyped the threat without the goods to back up what they said.

 

[Billo_Really]

Here's the first five lies. See the link for the rest. It is one of the biggest jokes of the new millinium saying he didn't lie. Like the poster before me, this has nothing to do with sides.

Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq
By Christopher Scheer, AlterNet. Posted June 27, 2003.


"The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons."
-- George Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in a speech in Cincinnati.

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the ***** story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

http://www.alternet.org/story/16274/

 

[Goobieman]

How many people have you killed today?

That's what I thought -

You were wrong and you know it.

 

[Goobieman]

Here's the first five lies. See the link for the rest. It is one of the biggest jokes of the new millinium saying he didn't lie. Like the poster before me, this has nothing to do with sides.

Tell us again - why did you lie about UNSCR 1441 and HR 114?

 

[ProudAmerican]

Not a flaw at all. You seem to think I care about sides of the isle. I care about the truth and am not loyal to any party. Not on this. Again, saying stuff means nothing; evidence matters.

whether you are loyal to one side or the other is irrelevant. the fact is, you are blaming one side for saying something that BOTH SIDES SAID....and in fact, the other side said it FIRST.

thats the flaw.

 

[aquapub]

All smokescreens, hysterics, and conspiracy theories aside, 9/11 justified us invading Iraq. Diplomacy failed for 15 years and Saddam was a terror-sponsor who had already demonstrated his interest in and willingness to use WMD.

End of Story.

 

[Iriemon]

It should also be noted that for over a decade, the U.N. was allowed to "call the shots" they were innefective, so we decided it was time to act.

What was so ineffective about it? The UN sanctions were supposed to keep Iraq from having WMD. Iraq did not have WMD.

 

[Iriemon]

Tell us again - why did you lie about UNSCR 1441 and HR 114?

Jeez how many infantile times are you going to beat a dead horse?

Billo said:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really
It is interesting to note that one of the main reasons people use to argue the invasion of Iraq was legal, was UNSC Resolution 1441. It is even more interesting to note that in our own Resolution H.R. 114, in which Congress stated the reasons for authorization to the executive branch to use military action, and which they listed in 114 all the pertanant UN Resolutions, 1441 was NOT included in the document.

That is not a lie, it is true. Your point is that it implies 1441 was passed before so it should have been mentioned. Fair enough. But the statement was not a lie. 1441 was not included in 114.

He acknowledged it. Move on. Grow up.

Funny how when someone else makes a mistake, you feel you have to hound it again and again like some childish victory dance -- as if you don't make mistakes.

Or do you want to tell us again how the poverty rate was going down before Clinton took office and decreased less under Clinton; or how violent crime was going down before Clinton took office and got worse under Clinton; or how Clinton took office in 1992; or how the Germans fought a guerilla campaign just like Iraq is a "known fact." And that was in one thread.

 

[BigDog]

whether you are loyal to one side or the other is irrelevant. the fact is, you are blaming one side for saying something that BOTH SIDES SAID....and in fact, the other side said it FIRST.

thats the flaw.

I am sorry, but Bush is the decider. He made the call, so the buck stops with him. Clinton did not commit troops or invade Iraq, Bush did. Most people understand the difference between empty rhetoric and making a monumental error in judgment. Saddam was a minor league threat that most would have prefered gone, but when you balance that with the costs and risks of war, one sees that it doesn't add up to justification, which is one reason Bush I didn't invade (you should read his book -- he mentions why he didn't invade).

Again, it isn't now nor never will be about "said." It is and continues to be about the decision and the lack of evidence. And when you look at the evidence, all you see are questions and nothing with the certainty that Bush and his people claimed. That makes them liars. When life and death are on the line, and the consequences this grave, we should demand the truth no matter how others hyped things in the past.

 

[Goobieman]

Clinton did not commit troops or invade Iraq, Bush did...Saddam was a minor league threat that most would have prefered gone, but when you balance that with the costs and risks of war, one sees that it doesn't add up to justification,

Translation:
Its OK to go to war on a lie so long as you dont kill too many people, send too may troops or spend too much money.

If only GWB had a (D) at the end of his name - his probelms would be solved.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I am sorry, but Bush is the decider. He made the call, so the buck stops with him. Clinton did not commit troops or invade Iraq, Bush did. Most people understand the difference between empty rhetoric and making a monumental error in judgment. Saddam was a minor league threat that most would have prefered gone, but when you balance that with the costs and risks of war, one sees that it doesn't add up to justification, which is one reason Bush I didn't invade (you should read his book -- he mentions why he didn't invade).

Again, it isn't now nor never will be about "said." It is and continues to be about the decision and the lack of evidence. And when you look at the evidence, all you see are questions and nothing with the certainty that Bush and his people claimed. That makes them liars. When life and death are on the line, and the consequences this grave, we should demand the truth no matter how others hyped things in the past.

thats all fine and dandy.

the fact is you CAN NOT CLAIM one administration LIED without admitting the other did as well.
THEY ALL MADE THE EXACT SAME CLAIMS.

but you did a fantastic job of trying to avoid that fact.

 

[ProudAmerican]

What was so ineffective about it? The UN sanctions were supposed to keep Iraq from having WMD. Iraq did not have WMD.

if they were so efective, one resolution would have done the trick.

 

[BigDog]

thats all fine and dandy.

the fact is you CAN NOT CLAIM one administration LIED without admitting the other did as well.
THEY ALL MADE THE EXACT SAME CLAIMS.

but you did a fantastic job of trying to avoid that fact.

No, they did not make the exact same claims. That is incorrect. As I have pointed out, many believe Saddam had some left over wmds. Many believed he was a minor threat to the area and felt that his being removed would benefit the ME. However, Bush raised the bar. Quite different from everyone else he said Saddam was growing and gathering, in essenece getting stronger than he was. The claim was nonsense and not supported by facts or intel. Others made claims about knowing where the wmd were and that links to Al Qaeda were bullet proof, neither of which was supported by the intel or facts, and then others made references to a mushroom cloud, a clear fear mongering tactic meant to side step intel and facts and rely on fear to move us. These were clear misleading efforts and moved the debate from a concern about Saddam to war, which no one else had made the case for previously. So, no, they were not exactly the same.

My point is you can't excuse this president with others. His decision stands as his decision. And his word stand as his words. And his adminstration represents him and unless he holds them accountable, which he almost never does, he is accountable for them as well.

 

[BigDog]

Translation:
Its OK to go to war on a lie so long as you dont kill too many people, send too may troops or spend too much money.

If only GWB had a (D) at the end of his name - his probelms would be solved.

To some degree, yes. Politicians lie (not about war -- make the proper distinction) all the time. Not only do we expected it, but we won't vote for them unless they do lie. But when you lie and your lie costs lifes, well, yes, I think that is different.

And it doesn't matter what party does this. Never has and never will. What bothers me is how willing many are to allow people to be killed based on a lie and hold no one accountable. Especially now that you see the great cost in both money and lives of that lie.

 

[Goobieman]

To some degree, yes. Politicians lie (not about war -- make the proper distinction) all the time. Not only do we expected it, but we won't vote for them unless they do lie. But when you lie and your lie costs lifes, well, yes, I think that is different.

You're not making the correct distinction here.
Clinton's lie led to an act of war, killed people, cost money, etc.
So, what's the difference?

And it doesn't matter what party does this. Never has and never will.

It sure seems that way when considering the vast majority of Bush critics.

What bothers me is how willing many are to allow people to be killed based on a lie and hold no one accountable. Especially now that you see the great cost in both money and lives of that lie.

And what of the lives lost and cost incurred in 1998?
As mentioned before, the large majority of Bush critics ignore them.
Why?

 

[BigDog]

You're not making the correct distinction here.
Clinton's lie led to an act of war, killed people, cost money, etc.
So, what's the difference?

I'm sorry, but Clinton didn't invade Iraq. So, factually there is a big difference, including the differences in the language as I have pointed out.

It sure seems that way when considering the vast majority of Bush critics.

No, I would say the wrongness of Bush's actions and policies contribute to the vastness of his critics.

And what of the lives lost and cost incurred in 1998?
As mentioned before, the large majority of Bush critics ignore them.
Why?

It isn't 1998, but I for one criticised that as well. But we are now in 2006, and Bush has a problem right now. It can't be excused by passing the buck. Bush is the president, and as such he is responsible. He saw the intel and made a choice to hype it. He cannot be excused.

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by Goobieman
You're not making the correct distinction here.
Clinton's lie led to an act of war, killed people, cost money, etc.
So, what's the difference?

I'm sorry, but Clinton didn't invade Iraq. So, factually there is a big difference, including the differences in the language as I have pointed out.

Of course. Even if the intellegence information was identical in Dec 98 and Mar 03 (which it was not) it is not just the question of whether the intellegence was correct but whether the course of action was warranted and well considered. For the decision to invade and occupy, the responsibility if upon the Bush Admin alone. And we are certainly seeing that it does not appear that the invasion was warranted or well thought out and considered.

But you cannot compare the situation in Dec 98 with March 2003,
because in '03 Iraq had let inspectors back in the country, they were continuing, and up to the time of the war, the inspectors had found nothing. The intellegence leads the Govt gave the inspectors as to the location of WMDs came up empty again and again, which (along with other indications that the evidence was questionable, like the yellow cake and aluminum tubes claims) should have set up a red flag that the intellegence we were relying upon was probably flawed.

Finally, Clinton did not send air strikes because Saddam had WMDs. Clinton did not say Iraq had WMDs. He sent the airstrikes because of concern that Iraq had WMD programs, and because he had expelled the UN inspectors. This was true. The airstrikes were ordered weeks after Hussein expelled inspectors.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

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 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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

Yesterday, Clinton reiterated that he would prefer a "diplomatic solution" to the standoff with Iraq but added, "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." Clinton met with Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, just back from a trip to Europe and several Arab countries to outline the U.S. position, and is to discuss Iraq with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who arrived in Washington yesterday.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp



In contrast, in Mar 03, despite strong evidence that the intel on Iraq's WMD was flawed, the Bush administration repeatedly emphasized that Iraq in fact had WMDs (not that he might develop them) and rushed us to an ill-considered war, consistent with the Administration and neocon pre-exisiting plan for regime change through invasion. Bush took a big gamble that despite the evidence of flawed intellegence, WMDs would be found. It was a stupid gamble, and not it looks like the US preemptively invaded Iraq based on false pretences. The subsequent mismanagmenet, born upon the ill-founded fantasy that the Iraqis would love to have us invade their nation, has just made a bad decision worse.

And we will be feeling the consequences for a long, long time.

 

[Goobieman]

I'm sorry, but Clinton didn't invade Iraq. So, factually there is a big difference, including the differences in the language as I have pointed out.

You said:

But when you lie and your lie costs lifes, well, yes, I think that is different.

Clinton went to war over a lie, and killed people over a lie -- and you're trying to give him a pass.
How can you live with your hypocricy?

No, I would say the wrongness of Bush's actions and policies contribute to the vastness of his critics.

You didnt address my point.
Why are so many of Bush's critics willing to give Clinton a pass about lying to go to war and killing people when doing so?

It isn't 1998, but I for one criticised that as well.

Of course you did.
These days its virtually impossible to find a democrat/Liberal that supported Clinton's war against Iraq in 1998.
I wonder why that is.

But we are now in 2006, and Bush has a problem right now.

You;re ignoring my questions.
And what of the lives lost and cost incurred in 1998?
As mentioned before, the large majority of Bush critics ignore them.
Why?

How can you give Clinton a pass for lying in 1998 in order to go to war and kill people, but then try to hold Bush accountable in 2006?

 

[Iriemon]

You said:

Clinton went to war over a lie, and killed people over a lie -- and you're trying to give him a pass.
How can you live with your hypocricy?

Clinton didn't "go to war" in the manner Bush did. Clinton committed to airstrikes, an act of war. Bush went to war -- invasion and occupation. You can compare the actions taken.

Clinton didn't lie. He didn't say Iraq had WMDs. He committed the airstrikes because Iraq had expelled UN inspectors and refused to give them acess and concern that Iraq would pursue WMD programs and would develop WMD.

You didnt address my point.
Why are so many of Bush's critics willing to give Clinton a pass about lying to go to war and killing people when doing so?

It's been addressed several times. The intel Bush had was different, and the evidence he had indicated it was flawed. And the issues is not just the intel he had but his what he did.

Of course you did.
These days its virtually impossible to find a democrat/Liberal that supported Clinton's war against Iraq in 1998.
I wonder why that is.

I support it. It was justified based on Hussein expelling UN inspectors.

That was not the case in Mar 03 -- inspectors had been combing all thru Iraq and had found nothing.

You;re ignoring my questions.
And what of the lives lost and cost incurred in 1998?
As mentioned before, the large majority of Bush critics ignore them.
Why?

American lives lost: 0
Iraq lives lost -- I don't know, but the civilian lives lost from four nights of air raids on selected targets must be a miniscule fraction of Iraqi lives lost as a result of the Bush invasion and its consequences.

 

[BigDog]

You didnt address my point.
Why are so many of Bush's critics willing to give Clinton a pass about lying to go to war and killing people when doing so?

What makes you think I'm giving him a pass? Since I didn't vote for him and criticised him at the time, how would that be a pass? But Clinton couldn't blame Bush I and Bush II can't be excused by Clinton. That seems simple enough, wouldn't you agree?

Of course you did.
These days its virtually impossible to find a democrat/Liberal that supported Clinton's war against Iraq in 1998.
I wonder why that is.

Because many of us didn't? BTW, I'm not particularly either a democrat or a liberal. I'm a citizen and a patriot (not a partisan apologist).

You;re ignoring my questions.
And what of the lives lost and cost incurred in 1998?
As mentioned before, the large majority of Bush critics ignore them.
Why?

How can you give Clinton a pass for lying in 1998 in order to go to war and kill people, but then try to hold Bush accountable in 2006?

When someone lies and it costs lives, they should be held accountable. What don't you understand? I tried to fire Clinton for his and I tried to fire Bush for his. I think that is quite consistent.

 

[BigDog]

Clinton didn't "go to war" he committed to airstrikes, an act of war.

You are correct.

 

[Goobieman]

You are correct.

Yeaaaaah.

Tell me:
Pearl Harbor.
That was 2 airstrikes in one day.
Did the Japanese go to war with us?

You people wil do anything and everything you can to avoid having to admit your hypocricy.

 

[ProudAmerican]

No, they did not make the exact same claims. That is incorrect. As I have pointed out, many believe Saddam had some left over wmds. Many believed he was a minor threat to the area and felt that his being removed would benefit the ME. However, Bush raised the bar.

LMAO.....funny stuff.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

sorry dude, that doesnt sound like the words of a man that thought someone was a "minor threat to the area"

but watching you tapdance sure is entertaining.

 

[ProudAmerican]

You people wil do anything and everything you can to avoid having to admit your hypocricy.

how true.

kinda like claiming

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

ole sandy simply thought Saddam was a "minor threat to the area"

:2rofll:

 

[Iriemon]

Yeaaaaah.

Tell me:
Pearl Harbor.
That was 2 airstrikes in one day.
Did the Japanese go to war with us?

You people wil do anything and everything you can to avoid having to admit your hypocricy.

Fair enough. You can say we went to war with Iraq in 1998 if you want.

Are you claiming airstrikes are the same as invasion and occupation?