I have no more irrefutable proof that he didn't lie than you do to show he did lie. Heres what your missing though, Ive never claimed there is no doubt he is telling the truth. There is really no solid proof either way, im not speaking in absolutes, however there are people in here that act as if they know for a fact he lied, like crusingram and others like him seem to base their entire disbelief on this war on notions they cant prove. I base my beliefs regarding this war on things I know to be true, not things I suspect. In other words my support for this war is not based on George Bushes integrity or lack thereof. My support initially came from understanding who Saddam was, today it comes from understanding the sacrifices we have made, and the huge amount of progress we are finally making now. Thats what motivates me so I don't have to speculate. Now that doesn't mean supporting the war and believing what I do is an opinion above those who don't support the war. It is very interesting however to see what motivates some of those who don't support the war.

Dontreadonme



Ok so He didn't spread his terror outside Iraq since the early 90's. but why? hrm, think about that. Tomahawk cruise missiles ring a bell? How about Operation Desert Fox? The conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group was that Saddam was a dangerous threat to that part of the world, and that he had the desire to rebuild his WMD program thought the 90's leading up to 2003. So why did he not spread terror outside Iraq after Desert Storm? Because we didn't let him He was getting blown the hell up is why, lol. The most interesting thing is what I found out about the two heads of the ISG David Kay and Charles Duelfer, comments of these two men are repeatedly used two demote the war, and come to find out they both concluded Saddam was more than dangerous, and had the desire to rebuild his WMD program. Its details like this that people conveniently leave out when they pull segments from the Duelfer Report about how there were no WMD found.

There is not a bone in my body that believes that Saddam wouldn't have repeated what he had already shown he can do if given the chance. So yes his past record is an extremely important part of why I thought it was important to remove him. Also there is solid proof that he had continued to try and find ways to kill innocent people long after 1991. Look up the "Drones Of Death" or "Operation Desert Fox" Or read about it in my original post of this forum. Saddam had not changed, and Saddam was actively working on ways to spread more death, thats not speculation, its fact. Thankfully, despite his best efforts, we never gave him the chance to repeat what he had already shown he could, and was willing do.



Well thats because your comparing pre war Iraq to Iraq while its sill at war. We haven't finished our objectives, extremist are standing against us to make sure Iraq remains a safe haven for them. Of course the capture of Saddam did not equate to an instantaneous stable Iraq. By the way our economy is not quickly going in the toilet, thats a gross exaggeration. Read about our situation in 1930, then come back and tell me the the economy is quickly going into the toilet. Man, Your just pessimistic across the board, its always the worst possible defeat with you, because you seem to always believe the worst case scenario. I suppose if you gave some acknowledgment to the good as well as the bad, you would possibly come to different conclusions than you do.
There is no doubt this war is not pretty or neat, but then again when is war ever pretty or neat? As for the economy, we'll just have to wait and see wont we?

So your contention that we are making "huge amounts of progress" is something you know to be true, and not something that you just suspect. By your own logic, you must have irrefutable proof, because that is the only kind of proof you consider worthy of recognition. Not just something claimed by journalists and politicians and others in a position to know something - you have already discounted those types of proof that have been presented to you on the other side of the debate. So, what irrefutable proof are you basing that claim on, exactly?

Then why was it necessary to invade Iraq?



That does nothing to detract from the fact that there were no WMD found. Intent is hardly a reason to commit the majority of your military capability. There are many countries who probably have the intent of acquiring nuclear weaponry, we'd better hurry up and invade them, right?



That's quite the point. I'm comparing a pre-war Iraq where we had Saddam contained, our military was in great shape [comparatively speaking] and we weren't losing American lives. Contrast that with today.



It didn't equate to anything except fodder for cable news and a warm fuzzy feeling for all the sunshine patriots back home.



Where I come from, heading towards recession = going into the toilet.



I simply asked a legitimate question, and you respond with your perceptionabout my philosophy. I acknowledge the good, when it means something, not simply when the MSM says something is good news. Again, I asked a simple question: So the case you are trying to make here is that continued sanctions, no-fly zones and occasional tactical bombing [which the legality of all are questionable], where the military was still in great shape to meet threats and no US lives were being lost........this was too tedious or effort consuming to warrant the deaths of 4000 Americans and damage to the military?

I do consider things I cant prove as well, I just happen to consider if there are reasonable counter arguments or not. If the president lied or not is something that really depends on who you ask. Most of those who claim he is a war criminal or a flat out liar, are either liberal democrats, or libertarians. Ive observed this online myself as well as seeing the same trend on the news, and this is no coincidence. The reason this is the case is because of political bias, people have allowed their distaste of a president who has clearly failed in many ways, to give them the excuse to drop the ball and assume the absolute worst is true of him, and they do so without any real evidence, or ability to back their claims. As for me, well I acknowledge his shortcomings and I am aware of his failures, but I'm not going to jump on the band wagon with those who will exploit him for things they cant prove, and in some cases things they cant even present with any amount of credibility whatsoever, like the 9/11 hoax enthusiast.

However can I prove there have been massive improvements throughout Iraq? Absolutely, in fact I'm glad you asked. First ask yourself what is fact? How do you separate fact from speculation? To me one clear indicator that something is fact, is when opponents and supporters of the idea both agree it is true.

For example take human induced global warming, I believe there is a strong chance it is real, however its a theory because the scientific community and the public are still split on the issue. However If you take the issue of ((Has the situation in Iraq improved since the surge began)) Here is an issue that opponents and supporters of the war are both almost unanimously convinced things have in fact improved. Ive seen so many democrats and liberals acknowledge this including presidential candidates, of course they follow it up by saying its only temporary, and this war is a lost cause, but they do at least acknowledge the fact that things have improved, because at this point its hard to deny. The only exceptions at this point are those who are hardcore, 100% dedicated anti war enthusiast, who wouldn't acknowledge success in Iraq if Iraq put a friggin man on the moon.

The reason so many acknowledge improvements in Iraq is that the evidence at this point is absolutely overwhelming. You have line graphs showing the drops in violent acts, you have Iraqis returning to their homes by the thousands, this is not speculation, things have improved in Iraq. Initially last September the left was able to argue that Gen. Petraeus cooked the books for the white house, in other words he sugar coated the situation, but after that each month the reports kept on coming in, indicating major steps forward. It wasn't long before it was clear there have been major improvements, Iraqis returning to Iraq by the truckloads was the proverbial nail in the coffin, and the reports are still coming in. Just yesterday I saw a news report showing kids running around in the street around buildings that were full of bullet holes.

Things have definitely improved everywhere from Anbar to Baghdad, the reports keep coming in. Now before you even respond I'll tell you right now that this doesn't mean Iraq is not still a dangerous place, and that people aren't continuing to die. It means exactly what I said (things have improved.) Not things are dandy, because we have a ways to go. Another thing I'm hearing about is massive numbers of decent Iraqis standing up against extremist in a way they haven't done before. This will help fill the gap as we return to pre-surge troop levels in Iraq. Our men all have my support, and I will never give up on them by saying they are risking their lives on a mission with no purpose, and Ive never believed that.

So, to sum up, you believe that proof is irrefutable, or at least it's good enough for you, when both Democrats and Republicans are saying it's true?

Yup, thats about what I'm saying, most of the anti-war in this nation actually acknowledge these improvements, even if they remain skeptical that we can win, for the most part they at least admit things have improved. Now of course additionally I've looked into the actual charts showing the violence trends decrease, and I've read the stories of Iraqis returning home, so yes all thats good enough for me. Well, goodnight room, I'm going to catch the republicans debate again.

So when Scott McClellan, not only a Republican, but a Press Secretary, claims that the administration was lying about Iraq, and bunches of Democrats and journalists also claim that the administration was lying about Iraq, is that good enough for you? Or are you going to somehow rationalize away McClellan's claims?

Net2007 let's start here



Can't speak for CR but I know what Occam Razor means, and you need to put it down and stay as far away from it as possible.

Occam Razor does not begin to describe what you believe in... the simpliest answer is not what you seek, else you would not search far and wide for that one piece of irrefutable evidence that Bush is misleading us.

Just like the April Glaspie thing... I'm not trying to have a full blown discussion off topic, but quickly... Iraq has massed it's forces off the border of Kuwait, There are tensions and words going back and forth, then we send an Ambassador in to tell Saddam to his face "America doesn't care what happens between you and Kuwait" OK Occam lover, why in the world would we tell Saddam we don't care what happens between Kuwait and Iraq??

I mean I got 2 kids. If i really don't want them to do something, this may seem funny, but I tell them, I actually tell them, "If you do that, I'm gonna whip your behind.." Well that coul start another whole debate....

Point is, if you don't want someone to do something, then you tell them don't do that. Yet, here you have our Ambassador on orders from Washington telling Saddam, "we don't care about any arab-arab conflict". Yet... you don't see this as a "green light", a signal saying "go ahead... we don't care"


Back to topic

You are ignoring the overwhelming facts, statements, and coincidences that point to Bush purposefully misleading Americans, in a quest to find that one irrefutable piece of evidence that unequivically paints Bush as a liar.

Occam Razor.... I'm not trying to tell you who you are...but I'm just saying.. maybe you're more on a Gillette level... like Mach 3.. or something.... That's a decent razor, you can likely relate to it better

We can agree that Iraq is not as hellish as it was last year, but it wasn’t as hellish in 2005 as it was last year either. Every time you proclaim that things have improved, you speak as if it has an air of permanence. The problem with line charts and graphs is that they simply state a headline. There’s no context to the packaged data itself, it has to be interpreted and analyzed.

Take for instance your statement above; I will assume that you are referring to the Sunni CLC’s, as they would fit what you wrote best. You write altruistically that they “are standing up against extremist in a way they haven't done before”. This makes for a great headline, and surely would signal improvement. However, analysis will show that most of these Sunni CLC’s are not only recently removed insurgents, but they have been able to retain much of their insurgent cell command and control structure while serving in this quasi-legitimate capacity. These individuals were not long ago shooting and planting IED’s that targeted American forces. In Diyala, we have gone so far as to conduct joint operations with the Sunni insurgent group ‘1920 Revolutionary Brigade’. If you consider the insurgents to be terrorists, then it is accurate to say that we not only negotiate with but we collaborate with terrorists.
Adding to the context beyond the headline, is the fact that the Shia dominated central government has given new meaning to the term foot dragging, when it comes to folding in the CLC’s to the Iraqi Security Forces, as the Bush Administration is pushing for. CLC’s battle with Shia dominated ISF units regularly; the CLC’s are arrested, harassed and blocked from patrolling many areas by the central government.

The bottom line is that the CLC’s aren’t ‘standing up to extremism’; they’re attempting to protect their Sunni enclaves in Baghdad against Jaysh Al-Mahdi, Iraqi Hizballah, the ISCI and the Iraqi Security Forces. This isn’t political bias; this isn’t demoting the war [whatever that even means]. This is daily life in Baghdad, this is the context behind the line graphs and pie charts; this is the depth of analysis that intellectually honest people will consider.

To tie this back to the topic, when senior administration officials such as the Vice President state unequivocally that there is NO doubt, there are absolutely WMD in Iraq, you certainly can’t simply chalk it up to political bias when many people, including many who supported the invasion, start thinking that Bush and company lied. The two major reasons for invading were WMD, and enabling a democratic regime in Iraq. The first reason is quite obviously seen as a ruse at worst and erroneous at best. We have virtually no credibility around the world when it comes to claiming a regime has WMD after the Iraq debacle. I don’t think that’s political bias, I think that’s pretty factual.
As for the second reason for invasion, what right have we to install a regime of our liking in another sovereign nation in the first place? Excluding taking that liberty, we administered the country as a colony, to the extent that we are still trying to hammer out a ‘security framework’ that would give US forces carte blanche as long as we remain occupiers of Iraq.

I guess there’s nothing wrong with believing something to be true if Democrat and Republican officials agree on that something, but I certainly wouldn’t limit myself that badly.

You have made this assertion numerous times, on various different threads, so I think I'll address it now because it is becoming tiresome. Germany declared war on the United States first. After Pearl Harbor, we declared war on Japan and then the Germans honored their treaty with the Japanese government (about the only treaty the Nazi government ever honored during the war) and declared war on us. Then they sent U-boats all the way out to the U.S. East Coast, and picked off our ships. So, yes, they directly attacked our coasts. I'd say that's a mite bit different than Saddam's "threat". Please stop this unfounded, erroneous, and completely irrelevant threat comparison of Saddam to the Nazi government.

Guess I'll add to address this one too:

The dispute between Kuwait and Iraq had been going on since the 1960s.

Correct. In this vital area we could have waited until he had nukes and decided to take another pass at Kuwait or started another war with Iran or attacked Israel – right we could have but doing so would have not been a smart move.

And what do you mean “starving people”?. You know the butcher Saddam was diverting money from the OFF program – not us and not the UN.

Well thats just my point, you say (bunches of Democrats and journalists claim that the administration was lying about Iraq) key word being Democrats, and the journalist you speak of that say bush flat out deliberately lied, are also typically Liberal or Democrat. While there are some exceptions, I'll tell you right now that overall at least 90 million people do not believe that he lied, because thats roughly the amount of people who support his war effort. Ive yet to talk to anyone who supports the war yet believes that the president lied about WMD, I'm sure of the war supporters the ones who do believe he lied make up a very small fraction of us. Then there are the ones who don't support the war which make up the remaining 210 million, and while the majority of those people think he was wrong, and shouldn't have gone to war, not all of them believe the president flat out lied. Its hard to say for sure how many believe he lied overall but the idea that he did lie is extremely controversial, and its controversial because there is no proof.

Now your claiming that despite the fact there is no proof, the simplest explanation is that he lied. I don't buy it, thats probably the explanation that you want, but not the simplest one. You see, while talking to those who will relentlessly blame the president for anything, Ive learned some things. Ive learned for one most of these people lean to the left in politics, which makes sense because that gives them a motive exploit a president in the opposing political party. Bill Clinton was a Democrat with an administration of his own, yet what conclusion did he come to just before he left office? The same conclusion he always came to, which was that Saddam had WMD. Take a look at this article for some evidence on that, I got a laugh out of this guys sense of humor, in the first few paragraphs............. http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/bushiraq.php

So you see the simplest explanation to explain there being no WMD in Iraq, ((if thats the case)) was that both the Clinton and Bush administrations, with totally separate presidential cabinets both came to the same conclusion, but were wrong. If you want to believe Bush lied well fine, say Bill Clinton lied, Say Hillary lied, hell say that every Democrat who claimed Saddam had WMD during the Clinton administration lied, after all they believed what they did as late as
January of 2001 based solely on intelligence gathered under the Clinton administration, before Bush even came into the picture.


Mrs. Pigpen


I'm very careful with the words I use so, consider the context. Every time I said we had not been struck by Germany in WW2, I also said ((On Our Soil))
I made that distinction for a reason. Another distinction I made was that the biggest difference between Saddam's Iraq and Hitlers Germany was scale, so of course Saddam didn't launch massive attacks by sea because even if he would have wanted to, he didn't have the ability. Get it ((Scale))?

Also I have made the distinction that there were in fact many differences between these two wars. However if you cant see the similarities both Hitler and Saddam shared then I don't know what to tell you, there were also some identifiable similarities between what our situation was in the 40's and what it is today. I'm not saying the wars were identical and never did, but if you want to say that what I claim is unfounded, erroneous, and completely irrelevant, whatever but frankly if you don't see that there were similarities between Hitler and Saddam perhaps I should match your sarcasm by saying read a book. It doesn't take a WW2 expert (which im not) to figure there were indeed some similarities.

For example, like I said before Both Saddam and Hitler had actively demonstrated that they were willing and able to unjustly kill countless innocent people. Both these men had a superiority complex, Both these men had influence and control over there own people, and both of these men were brilliant yet insane at the same time which is a terrible combination. Now they may not have had identical political motives, but they both wanted the same thing, to spread their rule and oppressing way of life outside the boarders of their own nation, and they used whatever they had to achieve that.

You know what I think? The reason people like yourself continuously downplay and underestimate Saddam is simple. Admitting Saddam was more than just a bad boy would work toward justifying the U.S. going into Iraq, and your not interested in considering Saddam was cause for concern, because your not interested in taking anything that may make sense of our presence in Iraq seriously. This is why you cant see the similarities between Saddam and Hitler.
Time and time again I talk to people who will not acknowledge ANYTHING that gives the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt, or anything that says we can win in Iraq, or anything that may have justified us going in there to begin with. Yet start talking about Bush and a Conspiracy, proof or no proof, to some thats like honey to a bee. You can be against the war and still acknowledge things that don't necessarily support your stance, if those things are obvious, like Saddam and Hitler having some things in common for example. I promise you wont morph into a neocon



Dontreadonme


You should know by now Dontreadonme, that I do consider more than headlines. We've had this conversation before right? Ive told you I really don't know for sure if violence trends will stay down. Ive never been one to take this extreme opinion where I support the war in every way with no criticisms, and Ive never been one to jump to conclusions that support my stance in every case. Is this war going to be difficult to win? Yes. Have there been foul ups on the part of this administration? Yes. Do I believe we could very well lose the war? Yes, its certainly a wild card as of now. There have been improvements, but I'm not concluding that its a sure sign of future victory. For one I'm considering that early next year theres a chance we will have a president that will be uninterested in wining the war, I'm also considering that even if we do have a president that wants to try and win, there are still no guarantees we will.

However I want nothing more than for us to succeed in this thing, and I believe we can do it. The progress that still continues today as troops are pulled out, is indeed promising, and its good news. I will continue to support this war, until we either win or pull out.



Well its some kind of bias, whether it be personal or political I don't know, not because many of the things you say aren't true, but because you take the same stance on everything regarding the war. You point out the negative, again and again. I had to jump through hula hoops just to get you to admit things were improving in Iraq a couple months ago. Remember that? At one point you said that things were getting worse fast, then I showed you proof things were improving in places like Anbar, then you said "so what its just a bunch of desert, whats important is Baghdad". So then I showed you proof things improved in Baghdad as well. From that point we went back and fourth as you pointed out every possible reason you could think of that would suggest the progress had nothing to do with the surge, and you would go back and fourth stating the negative in nearly every circumstance. some of the things you said were very factual, but its not hard to state a fact yet be misleading at the same time, because everything you argued (factual or not) basically backed the same message of hopelessness over and over. Not to be mean or nothin, but you remind me of Debbie Downer off of Saturday Night Live. Like off this skit take a look.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzZPn1CfQ0U



Well I wouldn't be so sure about that, We know Saddam had WMD up to 1998. There is plenty of evidence to support this, then you have Operation Desert fox and we give Saddam's Regime a decent blow by air, when we target some specific air bases. Look, even in Bill Clinton's last year as president he was saying Saddam had WMD. He left office in 2001, so was he lying too? I'm not doubting bush was misleading to an extent, but thats most politicians. He didn't know for sure if Saddam had WMD, although he spoke confidently about it, but I don't believe he knew for a fact that Saddam didn't have these weapons still hidden away and thats the only way he could have been flat out lying is if he actually knew for a fact Saddam no longer had the weapons. How the hell would he know Saddam didn't have these weapons without having gone in to find them? Answer that.

That whole argument is so easy to debunk, yet millions of people jump on that bandwagon. I can picture a husband and wife who protest President Bush sitting in their living room, flipping through the channels when they see Keith Olbermann is on TV talking about Bush lying about WMD, when suddenly the Husband jumps out of his seat and yells ((HONEY!! THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT BUSH LYING ABOUT WMD ON THE NEWS, GET THE POPCORN!!!)) I don't think your to that point, but I swear I believe some people enjoy hearing anything negative about the president.

BTW I was unable to find a replacement link for you but if I do I'll let you know.


Droop


To me the idea that he flat out lied is not the simplest explanation, there are too many counter arguments. Bill Clinton with his own administration came to the same conclusion Bush did. Even in his last years as president Bill was saying Saddam had WMD. And based on intelligence gathered under the Clinton administration many if not most democrats and republicans believed Saddam had these weapons in 2000. So Is Bill a liar too? Now I'm not doubting that the president hasn't been misleading to some extent regarding this war, however the only way he could have been flat out lying is if he knew for a fact Saddam did not have those weapons. Since the only way to know if Saddam still had his WMD was to go to Iraq and find out, that makes it impossible for the president to have said there were WMD, while knowing Saddam had none. President bush is always hard to read and misleading, he's a poor public speaker, and rarely communicates his message well on any issue. So the simplest explanation is that he believed Saddam had the weapons, and since we found none we could argue that he was wrong, but Im not convinced he was wrong. There is evidence pointing both ways.

Let's dissect this for a moment. I've said something that runs counter to your good news spin, and you immediately claim that it comes from bias. When you posted "The reason so many acknowledge improvements in Iraq is that the evidence at this point is absolutely overwhelming. You have line graphs showing the drops in violent acts, you have Iraqis returning to their homes by the thousands, this is not speculation, things have improved in Iraq." , does this not show bias using your measuring stick? Event the term "absolutely overwhelming" is couched in bias. This is the same mantra you have been repeating all along. How can it be bias when I post the other side of the story, and not be biased when you the side of the story you support. You want us to win the war, you don't want us to lose. I don't want us to lose the war, I would like us to win. How is my position biased and yours not? Does the other side of the story not need to be told? Are you comfortable only hearing news that you support, to the extent that anyone who speaks counter is biased?

I won't get into the other side of your good news about Iraqi's returning to Iraq.....and all of the 'major steps forward'. This isn't the proper forum. Besides recent news has cast a damper on these issues if you care to acknowledge them.



They didn't speak with confidance, they spoke in absolutes. there is a distinct difference. When you speak in absolutes, you speak as if something is a known fact. Not speculated, not probably, but known fact. The administartion didn't know if there were WMD's. Unless they were profferring a caculated lie, why would they have spoken so?



And there's many people who don't give a whit one way or the other about Bush, but believe this was a voluntary tragedy of monumental proportions. There's many people who started out supporting Bush's agenda, only to feel that they were intentionally misled and bamboozled.
So to be clear [you never answered my question], was this adventure worth 4000 American dead and 40,000 decimated families, when compared with the cost of sanctions and overflights?

Net- I noticed you didn't address post #107 where JFC mentioned Scott McClellend's quote about being lied to by his president- while he was the press secretary.

ARe you saying GWs personal press secretary is anti-republican and biased to the left?

There is lots of proof. You just choose not to believe it, even though I showed you that it passed your bipartisan test. What about McClellan coming out and saying they were lying? Why did you not address that? I jumped through all of your evidentiary hoops and kicked the football, only to find the goalposts have again been moved.


Again, you claim it's all partisanship.


I went over the difference at length in a previous post. Clinton took what was probably the same intel, recognized that there were some doubts, and he couched his position to reflect that doubt. (I referenced his speech on the subject in the old post.) Then, he ordered some bombing. Bush took that same intel, sold it as a slam dunk, and took us to war. Big difference.


Again, you are explaining away anyone with an opposing viewpoint as being blinded by partisanship. It simply is not so.


Wrong. That would have been a lie also, but it's not the only way to tell a lie.
Net, I've been trying to explain this point for a while now - the lie is in the way they asserted that there was no doubt that they had WMDs. It is not that they were wrong. It is not that WMDs were not found. Neither is really relevant to the lie. The lie is in them asserting it as a sure thing when, in fact, there was plenty of intel that went against them, plenty of doubt - enough where a normal administration would have couched its words carefully. And that was a big factor in convincing everyone to get behind the war. That's a big lie there.

No. As I posted. Hillary had no doubts in here statement and neither did Bill as his statements in Portugal prove. There was no doubt.

What we have is liberals trying to take identical statements but say “their people” were “couching” and had doubts.

Give us a break please. And the slam dunk phrase was from CIA – the Bill Clinton appointed CIA man by the way.

And if we call Bush reckless and then try to say “bill had doubts” but bombed the hell out of em anyway – come on please.

Difference was Bush went to war. And that is it. And many, including me, wish he had waited for the UN to drop the other shoe.

Hillary is only a congressperson. She doesn't start the wars. And she doesn't get first crack at the intel, either. And you probably remember that I believe that the intel was colored by the White House, anyway. Not that it matters, because she was not in a position to really influence anything. She was sailing along on the prevailing political winds, as usual. A lot of politicians went with the mass hysteria being whipped up at the time. You can have that point if you really want it. I'm not here to defend Hillary.

The fact that Bill Clinton himself believed that Saddam had WMDs only strengthens my point, Ted. Even with his personal belief that WMDs were there, he still didn't disregard the intel that said WMDs were not there. He didn't speak in absolutes to sell his bombing runs. He didn't take us to war on his hunch that WMDs existed. He took a measured response. The statements are not identical. Not if English is your first language.

I didn't say that Bush used the phrase "slam dunk." I said he sold the presence of WMDs as a slam dunk. And he did. Even though there was plenty of intel to the contrary.



That's a pretty g**d*** big difference, don't you think, Ted???

1.) I'll defer this one to the weapons inspectors.

2.) Almost certainly yes, but I question how big a threat. It could be said North Korea is a threat to Asia, but in reality, it wouldn't do much more than rattle the saber and harass its own people.

3.) Definitely not. We neither police nor do we entirely pressure African dictators, Latin American strongmen, or corrupt Europeans. Our government gets so caught up on democracy that it completely forgets allegations of voter fraud here at home. Just because the Iraqi elections may not have been free during Saddam's reign, they at least existed in name only. That's an homage to democracy, right? Better than nothing.

And at least Iraq was stable. Pundits on both sides of the issue argue this point; but it's true. Iraq was a country of order no matter how you slice it. Removing the source of that order was probably the worst thing for our peace initiative. Did anyone even think of diplomacy from a leveled position instead of being a superpower demanding concessions because we have the biggest guns? That's how you make men like Saddam go to desperate measures to defend his holding.

An eye is hardly bat when genocide occurs in Africa in far great proportion than what Saddam ever imagined of inflicting on his own people.

4.) Certainly not. America violates ethical standards every now and then, but China has yet to invade our sovereign territory.

5.) I believe the potential for anything exists, particularly in a war as poorly funded and prepared for as this.

Dontreadonme



The difference is I am not putting a spin on the obvious negative factors, I'm admitting to them. Its obvious there are a number of hurtles to over come in Iraq, its obvious the Iraqi gouvernment has a way to go, so for the 20th time YOUR RIGHT! Do you even understand that Ive actually agreed with over half of the claims you've made? Ive only parted with you in your conclusions. For example Ive admitted that Al Saders cease fire has played a role to an extent in lowering violence, Ive of course admitted that this administration has made a number of mistakes therefore Ive actively criticized him myself for this reason in many conversations dating back to before Ive even spoke to you, however I have also made light of the things people like you will turn their backs to. You speak the truth for the most part, but you also speak of only the things that back your personal beliefs.

Thats how your misleading, you would not admit that things are improving in Iraq, in fact I remember you saying just the opposite. I don't know perhaps you thought I was not educated enough on this war to know better, because in a period of a couple days you went from saying things are getting worse fast to admitting things are improving. Then of course you implicated the improvement was due to the cease fire, and you seem to take whatever position that will oppose the war, just like many in left wing America will do.



Well since I created the forum, feel free to discuss anything relating to the war. As long as your not talking about something completely irrelevant I don't mind.



Well I disagree with that, if you are confidant of something, you speak as if you are confidant, and thats what he did. There was some miscommunication, no doubt about that but in order to have flat out lied he would have had to know Saddam Hussein did not have WMD. There is no other way I can see it. I'm not necessarily letting him off the hook on this. What we can prove is that he was misleading through poor communication, and thats no joke, thats a serious mistake on his part. Ive often said Bush has dug his own grave on issues such as this. He should have been more clear on the other missions.

Anyone who can read knew from day one that this war was primarily about removing Saddam from power and establishing a more stable gouvernment in Iraq. This was known publicly before the start of the war, however his main focus was on WMD. This is what he spoke of more than anything else, and because of this miscommunication he has done his own administration damage. Its important as president to make sure that the public is on the same page with you, and Bush never put up any real effort to do this and for that I even criticize him. However he could not have flat out lied because he couldn't have known before 2003 that Saddam didn't have those weapons, if thats the case, and even today you have millions of people who are unsure, or confident Saddam did have the weapons but effectively hid them, or moved them.

Bottom line is that Bush was obviously misleading, but to have flat out lied about WMD, president Bush would have had to have known for sure that Saddam did not have these weapons before we went into find them in 2003. So you tell me how he would have known that definitively before 2003, then we can talk about him being more than misleading, then we can talk about him being a flat out liar or crook. However you will not be able to prove that, or even argue it respectfully, all you will argue is because he didn't know for sure, he is a liar or crook or whatever, but its my belief that when someone believes in something, like our president did, you speak confidently about it, and you speak as if you believe in it.

So you can argue all day long that he was misleading, but that he knowingly lied? Nope, but feel free to show me that proof anytime



Well honestly that depends on the outcome of the war DTOM, its ending has yet to be written in the pages of history. Shall we stick with it and succeed in our objectives, which at this point I believe we and Iraq can accomplish, then yes it was worth it. To end decades of hate and death, lead by dictators pushing their beliefs on others, yes if we shall win, it would have been worth it. Now if we lose then no, it will go down in history as a waste of time, money, and life, which is exactly why I will support us winning till the very end, and I will never turn my back on this, even if we lose ((which will no doubt be because we pulled out prematurely)) I will be one of the ones who stood there ground on this issue even when it became unpopular to the masses, I believe in this country DTOM and I believe we can help to better the world, and if I sound like an ignorant neocon conservative by doing so, then so be it.



Well CruisingRam When I made this post about WMD I did not rely solely on the testimony of General Sada did I? To rely on the testimony of one man for such a profound claim to me is evidence a part of you may want to believe Bush lied. This guy could have made his own interpretation for a number of reasons. That could be related to him having personal differences with the administration, or simply being wrong. I'm afraid that is far from proof that Bush lied. If there was proof the president knowing lied, thats grounds for impeachment, and nobody has a case for that because there is no proof, and never will be.

JohnfrmCleveland



No there is not lots of proof, there are lots of people willing to argue it, but not lots of proof. In fact lets drop that, just start showing me the proof. Stop speculating and show me the Proof that he lied. This should be interesting



Well thats because much of it is partisanship, why else would the majority of people claiming he is a liar or crook be democrats or liberals? You know thats the truth, even if some conservatives and republicans believe he is a flat out liar, the fact remains that the majority of those who claim he is a crook or liar are in fact liberal or democrat, now thats true even if many conservative republicans ((like myself)) believe he is a poor president.



There is a difference, however this does not change the fact that if both presidents came to the same conclusion they would either both have truly believed Saddam had WMD, or both be lying. However, are you willing to make the argument that Clinton was lying too? It seems to me you are not. The easiest explanation is that both presidents came to the same conclusion because it was too big a risk not to take it seriously, and there was indeed intelligence to support the idea. You can give Clinton a pass on this because he didn't go to war, but a lie is a lie. Clinton did take military action against Saddam several times in the 90's so to me its obvious both presidents had enough intelligence to support the actions they took against Iraq, and guess what? Because both Clinton and Bush took Saddam Seriously, I gave them both credit. I even give Clinton credit, despite the fact he is Democrat and I'm republican. He did what was right by taking military action against Saddam, and thats all there is to it.





Ok then if thats the way you want to see it, then Bill Clinton lied too. You don't have proof for that either, but I suppose its true anyway since he claimed it. What both men did afterwards is irrelevant. Because based on the same lack of proof you have that bush lied, you seem willing to give clinton a pass simply because bush went to war. So again everything being argued in this forum at this point would fail to be even remotley convincing in a court of law. And that goes for either Bush or Clinton. They didn't lie, they believed what they said, and you have nothing, absolutly nothing that is at all definitive on either Bush or Clinton, and thats it.

I disagree. I’m actually exposing the substance of the negative factors. Somebody has to, the nod that you give to those truths usually consist of; let me quote “Its obvious there are a number of hurtles to over come in Iraq, its obvious the Iraqi gouvernment has a way to go”. You put your spin on what you believe to be the positive aspects....."absolutely overwhelming"........
I will admit that the negative aspect of operations in Iraq garners more of my attention and my focus, but that’s primarily for two simple reasons. 1. The media simply doesn’t tell many of these stories, whether a fault of sources or decisions made in airing them; and the military doesn’t tell these stories either. Look on the MNC-I and MNF-I press release site, look at any military published venue [excepting the Army Times, sometimes] and you will generally only see good news stories, unless the military has to answer a specific charge brought forth by the media.
2. The negative aspect of operations, the negative side of the story if you will, has far more impact and affect on life in Iraq, than do the good news stories.
I comment on things that make a difference in Iraq. Saddams capture had no affect on operations or enemy actions. Clearing Anbar had little impact militarily. Both stories took huge amounts of media airtime, but aside from a feel good sentiment among the sunshine patriots, the impact was small. The frequent gunfights between Sunni CLC’s and Iraqi Security Forces have pose a greater threat to stability, but that story really isn’t getting told.



How is stating that taking the largest and most casualty producing enemy off of the battlefield being the primary reason for a decrease in attacks……opposing the war? It’s a simple statement of military science. You have chosen to spin it and lump me in with the left wing. I have yet to call you a Neo-Con………

Getting back to the questions originally posed:

3. If so, do you believe this means that he was a valid concern for the United States in regards to the War On Terror?

4. Do you believe Saddam's genocide alone was reason enough to remove him from power?

I don’t link Iraq to the ‘War on Terror’ at all. Our fight was with Al-Qaeda, of which there were none in Iraq. And if genocide were a reason to invade countries, why haven’t invaded the dozen more that have been responsible for genocide?
What exactly was our moral right to invade a sovereign nation that had not attacked us? You write of removing Saddam from power and establishing a more stable government, the case can certainly be made that his government was more stable than many others.
What is our moral right to attempt to install a government of our choosing? A political system of our choosing? I simply don’t remember Iraqi’s clamoring for a western style democracy to be imposed upon them.
Invading a sovereign nation that had not only not attacked us, but one where we weren’t even positive that they were a threat to us makes us the immoral aggressor, hands down.



So in your philosophy, there is no difference between having confidence and absolutes?



I respect your opinion, but I disagree with the callous waste of life in an act of aggression that had little or nothing to do with our national security.

Net, by demanding those unreasonable standards of proof, I'd guess that you probably don't believe in evolution, either.
McClellan was with Bush since the Texas days. He has no reason to make this up. You can invent all the McClellan scenarios you want to, accuse him of having personal reasons for saying the administration lied, say he was wrong, whatever. You have once again backed up your position with nothing more than your own vivid imagination.
You previously asked for nonpartisan "proof" in the form of a Republican who said Bush lied. I gave you no less than his press secretary in response. Now you are trying to escape by saying McClellan was either wrong or lying himself.



The majority of people claiming he's a liar are Democrats? That's not partisan. That's a bipartisan coalition. You know what's partisan? The only ones still defending this guy, against the great weight of the evidence, are the hardcore Bushy Republicans. That's partisan.

If the Iraq invasion and occupation is so important in the national scheme, then why hasn't the Administration asked the nation.....it's citizens.....to sacrifice something......anything.......to support this effort. All that has been asked, since 9/11 anyway, is for Americans to go shopping and not shy away from air travel. Is the military simply livestock to be used and abused at the whim of the White House?

Additionally, most acts of warfare throughout human history have been based on a morally indefensible argument, I believe Iraq to be no different. I would be very interested to hear your moral argument in support of the invasion and continued occupation. No slogans or tired patriotism please, your moral basis for supporting this act of adventurism.

Dontreadonme