From Wertz's link documenting the National Security Strategy.



The question George W. Bush as Commander-in Chief had to face was the risk to our national security of leaving Saddam in power. That risk had to be measured based on the current intelligence of that time, not what we claim to know now. Yes, if G.W. Bush lied than so did Bill Clinton. Bush was in the post 9/11 era. The risks of doing too little to combat terrorism were now well known. The risks of leaving a man in power, who it was widely believed had weapons of mass destruction, had some ties with terrorism. Bush, nor Clinton, ever lied (Well, in the context of Iraqs pre-Gulf War II assumed WMD's). They were, most likely, wrong.

[quote=Wertz,Mar 17 2004, 03:34 PM][/quote]


[quote]They didn't have to. Exercising the Bush doctrine means - by definition - that we were under immediate threat. If we were not, this war was illegal even by the virtually lawless standards of the Bush administration. The policy of the Bush administration is that we will take aggressive action if and only if we are under immediate threat of attack.[/quote]

Wertz, This is just plain wrong! Here is a quote from the strategy.

[quote]We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed , delivered covertly, and used without warning.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security . The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world’s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. To support preemptive options, we will: [/quote]

The keys points are the concept of imminent danger has been modified by events, e.g 9-11. As stated the strategy has adapted to change the definition of imminent danger to mean "not to remain idle while dangers gather".


[quote](And, even then, the Bush Doctrine is a national policy only - it has not been condoned or ratified by anyone outside the White House. The National Security Strategy is still illegal under international law, the Charter of the UN, and the Geneva Conventions - should anyone care.)[/quote]

You're right, it's not been condoned or ratified By the U.N nor has the National Security Strategy of this or any other country. Ever! I'm sure you know the U.N. is not a government! The Charter does not limit the sovereignty of any country or alliance especially with regards to issues of security. Could you provide a reference on the "international law" that you claim the U.S. is in violation of? Also those sections of the Geneva Convention that you believe we are in violation of?
I think you have an obligation when making such sweeping allegations to provide evidence to support them.

[quote][quote]They said Iraq was a threat to the stability of the region and the safety of our allies in the region. They said Iraq's programs could become an immediate threat to the US in the near future because he had WMDs and some ties to Terrorists.[/quote]
And none of that was used to rationalize an invasion by any of the people you quoted - nor could it have been. Not on the basis of the National Security Strategy (our only conceivable justification for such action).[/quote]

Yes the threat was used (in part) to rationalize the invasion! You refuse to focus on anything but discussions at the U.N. about WMD. Do you know why the focus at the U.N. was on WMD? Not because it was the "only" rational for invasion, but because 12 years of U.N. resolutions had focused on the violation of resolutions regarding WMD flowing from the cease fire agreement of 1991. The administration wasn't going to waste the time talking about terrorist support or tyranny at the U.N. Since when has the U.N. given a damn about those issues?
[quote][quote]Everyone I quoted above called Iraq a Threat and said Iraq had WMDs. If as you say, the real lie is that we should not have "preemptively" struck Iraq as American soil was not immediately threatened then didn't everyone listed above lie as well?[/quote]
No. None of them called for the invasion.[/quote]

Right! They just supported invasion and voted for invasion even if a U.N "endorsement" couldn't be obtained!

[quote][quote]Or is it that they knew it was wrong but just chose to ignore there responsiblities to the constitution and the country because they didn't want to look "unpatriotic" or anti-military?[/quote]
That is quite possibly why they passed Use of Armed Forces Acts (for use "if necessary"), but it must be born in mind that many of them also opposed the invasion at the time it was hastily, unnecessarily, and illegally mounted.[/quote]

Hastily in the face of compelling evidence agreed to by the world's intelligence agencies! Necessary based the same evidence, terrorist support, tyranny, and in face of 12 years of arrogance in the face of majority of world opinion. Not illegal under U.S. law! As stated I'll wait for references to violations of International Law.

[quote][quote]Even if we never find WMDs we still eliminated a threat in the regions stability and freed a people that wanted to be free but were scared to death (they thought he had WMDs too) to move against Saddam.[/quote]
That we did. We also broke international law, defied the UN (whose resolutions we were ostensibly "enforcing"), went against over two hundred years of tradition in a decent, humane approach to waging war, mounted the first aggressive attack on another sovereign state in our history, flouted the Geneva Conventions, and became a rogue state ourselves. Something to tell the grandkids, I guess. [/quote]

See above to avoid redundancy! For the grandkids! I sure hope so if they're not nuked or poisoned by terrorists or have to live in world whose economy has been destroyed by Islamic Fascists!

[quote]If you are arguing that we did not invade Iraq on the basis of the Bush Doctrine, that we would have invaded Iraq even if there were no implied "immediate threat" (however trumped up), that this was not a "preemptive" action, then okay: Bush may not be a liar - but even by our low standards, then, he's a war criminal.[/quote]

See above!

Wertz, Do you believe there is any rational for War, be it defensive or preemptive? Is George Washington a war criminal? Abraham Lincoln? Warren G Harding, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton?

[quote=offwind,Mar 17 2004, 11:05 PM] [quote=Wertz,Mar 17 2004, 03:34 PM][/quote]


[quote]They didn't have to. Exercising the Bush doctrine means - by definition - that we were under immediate threat. If we were not, this war was illegal even by the virtually lawless standards of the Bush administration. The policy of the Bush administration is that we will take aggressive action if and only if we are under immediate threat of attack.[/quote]

Wertz, This is just plain wrong! Here is a quote from the strategy.

[quote]We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed , delivered covertly, and used without warning.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security . The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world’s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. To support preemptive options, we will: [/quote]

The keys points are the concept of imminent danger has been modified by events, e.g 9-11. As stated the strategy has adapted to change the definition of imminent danger to mean "not to remain idle while dangers gather".


[quote](And, even then, the Bush Doctrine is a national policy only - it has not been condoned or ratified by anyone outside the White House. The National Security Strategy is still illegal under international law, the Charter of the UN, and the Geneva Conventions - should anyone care.)[/quote]

You're right, it's not been condoned or ratified By the U.N nor has the National Security Strategy of this or any other country. Ever! I'm sure you know the U.N. is not a government! The Charter does not limit the sovereignty of any country or alliance especially with regards to issues of security. Could you provide a reference on the "international law" that you claim the U.S. is in violation of? Also those sections of the Geneva Convention that you believe we are in violation of?
I think you have an obligation when making such sweeping allegations to provide evidence to support them.

[quote][quote]They said Iraq was a threat to the stability of the region and the safety of our allies in the region. They said Iraq's programs could become an immediate threat to the US in the near future because he had WMDs and some ties to Terrorists.[/quote]
And none of that was used to rationalize an invasion by any of the people you quoted - nor could it have been. Not on the basis of the National Security Strategy (our only conceivable justification for such action).[/quote]

Yes the threat was used (in part) to rationalize the invasion! You refuse to focus on anything but discussions at the U.N. about WMD. Do you know why the focus at the U.N. was on WMD? Not because it was the "only" rational for invasion, but because 12 years of U.N. resolutions had focused on the violation of resolutions regarding WMD flowing from the cease fire agreement of 1991. The administration wasn't going to waste the time talking about terrorist support or tyranny at the U.N. Since when has the U.N. given a damn about those issues?
[quote][quote]Everyone I quoted above called Iraq a Threat and said Iraq had WMDs. If as you say, the real lie is that we should not have "preemptively" struck Iraq as American soil was not immediately threatened then didn't everyone listed above lie as well?[/quote]
No. None of them called for the invasion.[/quote]

Right! They just supported invasion and voted for invasion even if a U.N "endorsement" couldn't be obtained!

[quote][quote]Or is it that they knew it was wrong but just chose to ignore there responsiblities to the constitution and the country because they didn't want to look "unpatriotic" or anti-military?[/quote]
That is quite possibly why they passed Use of Armed Forces Acts (for use "if necessary"), but it must be born in mind that many of them also opposed the invasion at the time it was hastily, unnecessarily, and illegally mounted.[/quote]

Hastily in the face of compelling evidence agreed to by the world's intelligence agencies! Necessary based the same evidence, terrorist support, tyranny, and in face of 12 years of arrogance in the face of majority of world opinion. Not illegal under U.S. law! As stated I'll wait for references to violations of International Law.

[quote][quote]Even if we never find WMDs we still eliminated a threat in the regions stability and freed a people that wanted to be free but were scared to death (they thought he had WMDs too) to move against Saddam.[/quote]
That we did. We also broke international law, defied the UN (whose resolutions we were ostensibly "enforcing"), went against over two hundred years of tradition in a decent, humane approach to waging war, mounted the first aggressive attack on another sovereign state in our history, flouted the Geneva Conventions, and became a rogue state ourselves. Something to tell the grandkids, I guess. [/quote]

See above to avoid redundancy! For the grandkids! I sure hope so if they're not nuked or poisoned by terrorists or have to live in world whose economy has been destroyed by Islamic Fascists!

[quote]If you are arguing that we did not invade Iraq on the basis of the Bush Doctrine, that we would have invaded Iraq even if there were no implied "immediate threat" (however trumped up), that this was not a "preemptive" action, then okay: Bush may not be a liar - but even by our low standards, then, he's a war criminal.[/quote]

See above!

Wertz, Do you believe there is any rational for War, be it defensive or preemptive? Is George Washington a war criminal? Abraham Lincoln? Warren G Harding, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton? [/quote]
Well, since this topic is about whether or not Bush lied, or everybody in the world lied (which I assume we would humbly submit to the Guiness Book of World Records as the world's largest conspiracy), I'm betting your answer is no.

Wertz is not wrong as you suggest. According to YOUR interpretation of the doctrine, we are allowed to invade St. Maarten for their pina coladas and bare chested women because their police force purchased bullets. After all, anything can be a "gathering threat" according to your definition.

While we're at it, name me ONE country in the world that isn't a gathering threat? Every country in the world has a right to defend itself and makes steps to do so. Consequently, anything they do can be considered a gathering threat.

That is preposterous. The Bush administration made 237 statements before, during, and after the war that were all wrong. I'm still waiting for the report that shows even ONE thing they got right! Because so far, they're 0 fer the 21st century.

Now, you're modifying the spirit of the doctrine to get the ends to justify the means. Which, even if were as you suggest, STILL WRONG.

How? Easy. There's never been an Iraqi terrorist EVER implicated in international terrorism. WTC 1 and the Bush 41 attempt were by Kuwaitis and Saudis (but blamed on Iraq somehow). Hussein used the MWD we sold him as a defensive weapon against Iran back in the 90's. He never used them before then and none after. In all the years Saddam actually had WMDs (nobody could seriously argue he never had them. After all, we have the receipts), none have ever made it into foreign hands to be used as terrorist weapons.

Congress didn't lie because they did not have access to the same intelligence Bush had. Bush continues to stall/refuse to disclose intelligence data to commissions trying to figure out what went wrong. If everybody knew the same thing, why would they need investigators and commissions?

Bush lied because it's impossible to get 237 things wrong without getting one right. We don't invade countries because of gathering threats or everybody in the world would be a legal target. Except for one country - Iraq. They were contained so well by sanctions, no-fly zones, and inspections, that they couldn't seriously threaten Disneyland.

DaytonRocker

I see nothing in your posts the show that President Lied about WMDs. IMO, his smoking gun speech provides the necessary reasons for our decision to topple Saddam militarily.

1SG

There have been numerous quotes in other threads on AD that have shown that Bush had intel that other people in Congress,etc were not allowed to see. Also it has been shown in other threads that Bush was told Saddam was not a threat from some sources but he chose to cherry pick the ones that claimed Saddam had WMDS.

The white house even created a office to collect intel evidence that was contrary to Tenet and the CIA.

The Bush adminstration went to any length to get intel that matched their belief.

My goodness how much more evidence do you need?

Well as quoted above by me and others Blix and Kay as well as the intelligence services of most allied countries believed Iraq had WMD. Kay has said recently that we are “unlikely to find large caches of WMD”. He did NOT say he thought Iraq never had them and never wanted the. In fact he said just the opposite. He said Iraq had dozens of WMD programs and thousands of people working on WMD.

So if Bush lied the Clinton and many others “lied”. Bush merely enforced UN 1441. Iraq war required by this resolution to prove they had no WMD or bring them out. Kay has said many times including recently that the Iraq chemical/bio weapons experts were liars. The fact that we have not found the WMD does NOT mean they were not there.

Bush correctly judged that Iraq was a long term threat to the region and our interests and security. He realized that the UN had no intention of ever enforcing any of the numerous resolutions that Iraq failed to comply with. He did the right thing at the right time based on the information available at the time.

Im thinking that A LOT of people lied. Instead of asking 'if', we should start asking 'why'.

A documentary film aired on British television last night:

http://www.theomahachannel.com/news/2932006/detail.html

'A television report by Pilger aired on British screens last night said US Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice confirmed in early 2001 that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had been disarmed and was no threat.'

"Pilger uncovered video footage of Powell in Cairo on February 24, 2001 saying, "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

'Two months later, Rice reportedly said, "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

'In his report, Pilger interviews Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA officer and friend of Bush's father and ex-president, George Bush senior.

McGovern told Pilger that going to war because of weapons of mass destruction "was 95 per cent charade."

"Pilger also claims that six hours after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he wanted to "hit" Iraq and allegedly said "Go Massive ... Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

He was allegedly talked down by Powell who said the American people would not accept an attack on Iraq without any evidence, so they opted to invade Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden had bases.
(I read the same almost a year ago)

Then there is David Kay, who resigned today:
After six months leading the hunt for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction David Kay had resigned and in a deadly parting shot he had made clear that Saddam Hussein almost certainly had not had the WMD that America and Britain had cited as the reason for last year's war. (although he still supports the war effort)

George Tenet says his analysts "never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

Poland claims it was 'misled' about Iraq WMD.

The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee noted that Prime Minister Tony Blair and several key defense and security chiefs declined to testify about whether the government exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

It also noted that the government refused to provide important intelligence documents on alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/...ain560449.shtml

Seems its lie fest all around, or maybe just another great big bungle. Either way, theres a lot of lost credibility.

Watched Blix on the "Today" show a few days ago. He said that going back into Iraq in early 2003, he had a whole laundry list of places to look for the WMDs and WMD programs. As they searched, though, they turned up nothing. And he then questioned the list and said "Wait a minute... how could this list be so completely wrong?" And reported that to the security council.....

But the Bush Administration didn't want to believe them. So, instead of using diplomacy, they, well, you see what they did.

The "lie" in question was that we absolutely HAD to go into Iraq and take apart their country and occupy it for over a year and lose our soldiers and spend money we don't have all to find those pesky WMDs that didn't exist. The Bush Administration wanted a war with Iraq. They just couldn't say: we want a war because we're tired of dealing with Saddam. So they hyped the WMDs that didn't exist and are STILL claiming that they "might" exist, even though Kay and Blix have both concluded that they haven't existed for years.

As for the debate question: you cherry-picked quotes from Democrats to "prove" that Bush didn't lie, but where did the Intelligence that Iraq had WMDs come from? Oh, right: the Administration... which happens to run the CIA and military as part of the Executive Branch. Congress didn't create a parallel task force within the CIA to locate faulty Iraqi intelligence and then hype it. They aren't allowed to do that. Only the Administration could get away with that.

I heard a poll given out on C-Span where people were asked about the WMD issue. A question was asked "How informed do you think the president is". To which only about 60% said "He was well informed" I remember thinking: well informed? You have to be kidding me. Who on the planet is better informed than the president of the United States? (the poll taker agreed with me).


So the question is why the disconnect between what people think and what is? Do people just not understand the question? I would say yes, even if it is explained to them several times. When the Bush admin talks about freedom, beware folks for he is speaking of 'his' or 'their' freedom. Freedom to spin something any which way they want. Did they know about 9-11? Of course. But their naivete caused them to overlook it. Now as an American citizen am I supposed to have sympathy for that all the way to the point of saying "here have all my freedoms, I don't need them anymore"? OR really, am I supposed to question the qualifications of this administration in protecting its people? I think it is the latter, and no amount of militarizing and martializing of our own laws will make me think otherwise. I will not be known as the generation who sat by and squandered all manner of reasonable rights to pay for some fleeting administrations "naivete". In all honesty, we were all naive to this, but who has the least claim to this naivete but the most informed person on the planet?

All anyone had to do was listen to Scott Ritter with an open mind to know there was no longer a WMD threat in Iraq. Freedom in America shouldn't mean more freedom to the rich and the powerful (to twist and spin information). We are drifting away from the language of the Declaration of Indepedence. This is a dangerous thing, as it also happened in the Civil War...

There is one point that many critics of the Bush/War In Iraq are either overlooking or misunderstanding. Without rehashing all the previous statements/quotes of the current and previous Presidents/administrations, Intelligence, etc., let's use the statement of General Shalikashvili in 2002 which expresses the identical concerns and in many instances, almost the same words in expressing his concerns.





It is a fact that Saddam was financing suicide bombers in Palestine. Shortly after the invasion in Iraq, the forces found records to support previous intelligence that Saddam authorized funds in excess of $35 million payable to suicide bombers' families as high as $25,000 each via the hands of terrorists organizations.

The grave concern and sense of urgency regarding Saddam's WMD was not that he, personally, was going to use them in launching a WMD attack against the U. S. or his neighboring countries...but that he would accommodate the terrorists in their mission of mass murdering their enemies by funding, selling, transporting, or donating from his inventory of biological/chemical WMD. What sweet revenge for Saddam!

That in a nutshell is the primary grave and eminent threat posed by Saddam that "those in the know" couldn't wait for or pray for not to happen for once that "smoking gun" was evident, it would be too late.

Edited to correct dollar amount and rephrase a sentence.

Giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers is NOT "financing suicide bombers". Really. And "authorizing" is not the same as "paying", so unless you have financial records showing it happened, it's all a nice publicity stunt on Saddam's part... standing with the Palestinians who were the only ones in the region who supported Saddam in Gulf War I. Not saying it didn't happen; just that this charge keeps getting repeated and I haven't read ANYWHERE that the money actually changed hands to the tune you are suggesting.

As for the General's comments... um, when was the last time he was privvy to the intelligence information that he claims to be so expert about? He retired in 1997... five years before testifying and about a year before the last of the WMD appears to have been dumped. Not sure his title makes him such a good expert in Iraqi matters in 2002-2003.

This is an interesting piece of semantic gymnastics. Really. Might I remind you that suicide bombers are either preparing to die or are DEAD thus eliminating the immediate need for spending money. By offering to fund the families of suicide bombers Mr. Hussein was providing monetary incentives for those fanatics who had a desire to harm their enemies and provide for their family in one grand gesture. And if Saddam did not want to be held accountable for his words he should not have uttered them. Period.

Likewise stating that authorizing and paying are not related and do not show culpability is evidence of willfull ignorance on your part. By that logic we could argue that we need not hold Bin Laden accountable for 9/11 because he did not physically fly the jets into the towers but only authorized it. That's not sound reasoning and I think you know that.

This has been a very interesting and even enlightening discussion of the issue regarding who lied or even if there was a lie when it comes to invading Iraq.

Some that suspect less then the truth was used to get us into Iraq have alot of good information, excellent questions, and make a persuasive argument.

A very persuasive argument.

I do not know if the Administration purposely manipulated the truth to get us into Iraq, or if, in the light of 9/11 they were focusing on worst case scenarios. But we need to investigate this and prove it one way or another for the good of the country.

One fact remains, the majority if not all of the world leaders thought Iraq had WMDs. Many choose not to support the war because they felt diplomatic options had not be exhausted, a few opposed the war, simply because they oppose war period. And a few opposed the war because the current situation in Iraq was very lucrative for them.

I, as an American and a member of the US Military do not and will not automatically assume that the President of the United States, my Command and Chief, lied.

However, the question that begs to be asked is: If the adminstration did not lie or obfuscate the truth then why are they so neutral on an investigation? If you are innocent of such charges why would you not step up and demand an investigation to clear your name and protect your reputation?

Sure, if you focused on worst case scenarios, some will call that lying, but the majority of Americans will not buy that. Without a smoking gun showing the adminstration intentionally lied to the world to justify invading Iraq the majority of Americans will not condemn the President. So why the resistance?

Then there is the track record of the administration. Like the refusal to produce the names of those that attended meetings with Cheney regarding energy policy. What could be lost here? The Majority of Americans assume it was Oil execs and assumes it was about EPA regulations and generally isn't bothered by that. Why hide it? Is there something else to hide?

I have to say I was wrong assuming that there were no lies here. I am not saying there were, just that questions need to be answered. We need a full investigation of this. We need to know what failed, what is broken and what was manipulated (if anything). We need to know the truth so that we can prevent this from happening again.

However, I did not "Cherry-pick" the remarks. I took the all of the statements I could find where those that now call the President a liar had also stated that Iraq had WMDs. There were no comments to find that anyone in congress made saying that Iraq did not have WMDs because everyone thought they did. There were many comments made by many of those quoted that were in opposition to the war. However, most voted to authorize it and did so saying that Iraq had WMDs. And WMDs are the subject of the suspected Lies.

Further discussion has shown to me that, although congress has much more access to intelligence information then some would suggest, the fact is the White house was the only place that had it all. This being the case, it is quite possible that if the White house lied, obfuscated or manipulated the truth, congress, though they said the same things, might not have, as they simply might not have had all of the available information to base their decision on.

I support the War in Iraq completely regardless of WMDs because, in my opinion, the real reason for the war was simply that Saddam had spent 12 years defying the agreement that was made to get us to stop shooting and leave his country. At some point you have to hold people, even countries accountable and that is what I think we have done.

I also think it is ridiculous to suggest that we knew all along he had NO WMDs, the entire world thought he did, mostly because we knew he had them at one point, the inspectors found some and thought he had more, Saddam consistantly interfered with the inspectors suggesting that he was hding something and, due to his own warped political strategy he wanted the world, and more importantly his rivals within Iraq to believe that he had them.

To resolve this issue we need an investigation, we need to know what happened. I still believe it is likely that the White house is guilty of bad judgement and not lying, though some of the things said here and elsewhere are quite troubling. Without the proof either way, this issue will divide many and cause the world to question our country's credibility. That serves no one.

If the Administration is innocent of these charges then they should be screaming for an immediate investigation. The fact that they are not, and at times seem to be circling the wagons troubles me.

So, though I started this topic I have to say:



No



It is still more likely, because of the questions that have risen, more specifically the answers that have not are what make the situation troubling.



Yes, though if it turns out to be true that there was intelligence out there that suggested Iraq was not nearly as big of a threat as the Administration claimed then Congress can not be held equally accountable.



Yes we are, though again, if it is true that there was intelligence suggesting Iraq was not as big of a threat and if this intelligence information is dated after the end of the Clinton Administration, then the previous president would not have been lying about the threat, the intelligence the previous Administration had to go on was likely wrong then as well.



This is my biggest concern. We must fully investigate this. We MUST know what happened and how our intelligence could have failed so badly here. The intelligence community NEVER suggested Iraq had no WMDs, but analysts did differ on what he had, how much he had, and what he could produce.

We need to know where the intelligence community failed if we are to correct this. And we need to know if the Administration misled us if we are to know where the problems really lie in our intelligence community.

Brinn..you may want to do a Google search using the words "Saddam Funds" and you will be surprised at how many sources there are to help you in the search for reading material on Saddam's Funds.



And, yes you are correct...a slip in my phrasing...but it doesn't make it less so. Actually, I was wrong in the figures...should have been 35M instead of 3M...glad my error was in understating rather than overstating.

In the meantime, here is a link to an article to get you started in your quest for Saddam's Funds:



In addition to that, many months before the war, Nightline did a special interviewing families of suicide bombers....ahhhhhh nice homes, nice furniture, nice Saddam's picture up on their wall, their dead kids' picture with the words Brave and Hero on it and posted all over their residential town.

Let's please be willing to give Saddam credit for doing more wrong than our very own President ..that certainly would be a welcome change.

And amf...



Evidently, the General was privy to enough information and experienced enough to testify before the Hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 9/23/02) as stated in the quote I supplied. While you were checking out his retirement date, you may have possibly checked out what other assignments he took on after retirement. Just maybe...he didn't flop in a rocking chair the day after retirement as didn't Colin Powell.

Of course, in the interest of full disclosure and objectivity, I'm sure you will provide the amount of money paid to homicide bomber families by Saudi Arabia (the guys that held telethons for terrorist families), Jordan, Egypt, and Iran. You know, every neighbor of Israel.

Because nobody could seriously suggest Iraq was doing something differently than every other Arab nation in that area in terms of financing the Pals...

Thank you for the leads Desert but I need no further evidence to convince me of Saddam's support of terrorism...You're preaching to the choir.

Dayton, you're effort to frame the debate differently, to move it from "Did Saddam support terrorists?" to "What did Saddam do that most other ME countries didn't?" is a red herring. By stating that he did support suicide bombers but no more so than other ME countries you are admitting that he did support terrorism and arguing over the degree of support. I'll take that as concession.

Although it is a red herring I'll bite. The fact that "everyone is doing it" doesn't make support of terrorism nor terrorism itself right. By establishing a front in Iraq and working to build a functional democracy we now have infinitely greater means to place pressure on those other regimes in the ME who you refer to. We cannot win the war on Terror in one grand battle but we are on the path to winning it one skirmish at a time.

That is true for the most part. However, many (including the post I responded to) use supporting Palestinian causes as a reason to go to war. But the same people ignore every country that surrounds Israel doing the same. War is the last resort. Double standards cannot and should not exist. If you are going to invade a country under the guise of the war on terror because they support Hamas, then invade them all - including our allies that offer the same support.

My point is, simply supporting Hamas is not a reason for the United States to go to war. Hamas has no history of attacking us directly no matter how despicable they are. There are cultural differences we can't even comprehend. We look at Hamas and their ilk as the murderous <put your own term in here> that they really are, but Arabs look at them as freedom fighters. This is MUCH different from financing a group that hijacks airplanes and flies them into buildings or groups that pack a truck with explosives to blow up embassies and naval vessels on an international scale.

We have two top administration officials come out and tell us what we already know - Bush completely dropped the ball on our war on terror because of his fixation with Iraq. There is not ONE shred of evidence or convincing proof that the failure to invade Iraq would have harmed us. Of course, there is plenty to indicate otherwise. People actively involved in the bureaucratic process can substantiate what they say. And what they say is not good for Bush supporters who seem to want a republican in the white house more than being safe.

Hans Blix and David Kay came out and said Bush was wrong. Both are labeled as leftists opportunists. Yet, they can prove everything they say.

O'Niell and Clarke came out and said Bush was wrong. Both are labeled as leftists opportunists. Yet, they can prove everything they say.

Yet, Bush can't show ONE thing to prove he was right or the others are wrong. It's easy for Rice, Cheney, et al to come out and say they don't recall some of the things Clarke says, but it's a much different thing to prove it. And they can't. People at those meetings have already substantiated many of Clarke's claims. In fact, the Administration as a whole is dragging it's feet on the commissions trying to find the truth. If they are not covering up something or lying, why not cooperate? Our nation's credibility was put on the line when Bush bet the farm on Iraq having WMD to find out later, Iraq HAD disarmed as ordered. Bush knew the consequences of being wrong then and knows it now.

If Bush reinforced what everyone thought they already knew while withholding the truth, that's a lie. And everyone bought into it because the world hated Saddam and wanted to believe the reasons we hated him so much truly existed.

Ya, I find the administartion's assertion that anyone who criticisizes their programs is a political oppurtunist to be weak.

I am sure that nobody in the United State's really belives. How many 'leftist oppurtunists' does the administartion think they can lead the American polity into believing exist?

Daytona, regardless of what anyone says, I agree with you. There is something shady about this administration. Maybe one or two of the allegations are false, but there is still too much. It all began when Bush brought the brunt of his political attacks against McCain in the 2000 primaries. And continued through the sketchy election.

I agree with you--there is too much here.

I made need some help here--but the number of Bush defections appears to be unprecedented.

Are there really that many 'left wing oppurtunists'? Or is there something fundamentally wrong with the administration?

Its not a Red Herring at all. Firstly, let us be clear, money to the family of suicide bombers what NOT what the US was referring to when they accused Saddam of supporting terrorism.

However, ignoring that for the moment, you are arguing for an absolutist case here: saying that, it is undeniable that Hussein did in some manner, no matter how common this was or how how limited, support terrorism. Therefore, under your all or nothing conceptualisation, he was a 'supporter of terrorists' and deserved to be invaded.

If that is your context, then I suggest you ask yourself, where did the IRA get all its money to kill Irish and UK citizens in the 1970s and 1980s? Who trained and equipped the original root organisations that formed al Quaida? Who funneled money and guns to counter-revolutionaries and terrorists all across central and south America?

All USA. Now normally, these cases might have no bearing on this debate, but the way you have decided to contaxtualise things, ANY support for ANY terrorists = "Terrorts supporter".

Thus it is not at ALL a red herring.

" Lies is part of the game of politics."

Well actually Blix and Kay said some of the intelligence was wrong – NOT Bush was wrong and he even went so far (Kay) as saying that he felt that based on the intelligence the decision Bush made was reasonable. Did you miss that part of his testimony?

And just in case you think, as some leftist journalists seem to, that Kay said there were no WMD in Iraq that is emphatically NOT what the man said.

Here is some of what he DID say though. If you think Iraq was not building WMD you are incorrect.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/spee...y_10022003.html

We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone. We are actively engaged in searching for such weapons based on information being supplied to us by Iraqis.
Why are we having such difficulty in finding weapons or in reaching a confident conclusion that they do not exist or that they once existed but have been removed? Our search efforts are being hindered by six principal factors:
1. From birth all of Iraq's WMD activities were highly compartmentalized within a regime that ruled and kept its secrets through fear and terror and with deception and denial built into each program;
2. Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs began pre-conflict and ran trans-to-post conflict;
3. Post-OIF looting destroyed or dispersed important and easily collectable material and forensic evidence concerning Iraq's WMD program. As the report covers in detail, significant elements of this looting were carried out in a systematic and deliberate manner, with the clear aim of concealing pre-OIF activities of Saddam's regime;
4. Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them;
5. Any actual WMD weapons or material is likely to be small in relation to the total conventional armaments footprint and difficult to near impossible to identify with normal search procedures. It is important to keep in mind that even the bulkiest materials we are searching for, in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two car garage;

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:
· A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

You are factually incorrect. Monetary support to families of suicide bombers was specifically mentioned as one of many links Saddam had to terrorism. Please see the following quote from Colin Powell’s remarks to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003 (Empahsis added):

Secretary Colin L. Powell
New York City
February 5, 2003
Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Saddam uses the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the Intifadah. And it's no secret that Saddam's own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s.


For various reasons, including the significant Irish/American population the US has always attempted to play the role of arbiter and peacemaker between the IRA and the Unionists. Surely private donations have reached IRA hands however the US government has never actively endorsed nor provided funds for the IRA or any of it's splinter organizations. If I am wrong on this I would like to see confirmation. It is interesting to note that the Clinton administration was well known for it's interest in Northern Ireland however I view the previous administrations efforts as largely appeasement. Appeasement has accomplished nothing in Northern Ireland and it will be equally effective in the Middle East. The views of the current president on Northern Ireland are much different. I quote a UPI story dated 8/3/2002

NEW YORK, Aug. 3 (UPI) -- There is good news from Washington concerning one front in the war on terrorism: It appears that elements of the Bush administration may be reassessing the peace process in Northern Ireland. The Department of Justice is taking the lead on this issue by taking a harder line against some Irish terrorists. Attorney General John Ashcroft has requested the State Department to place the Ulster Freedom Fighters and the Loyalist Volunteer Force on its Terrorist Exclusion List. This critical law enforcement tool, created by the USA Patriot Act of October 2001, permits the United States government to exclude or deport aliens who provide material assistance to designated terrorist organizations. In December, 2001 Secretary of State Colin Powell, after consulting with Attorney General Ashcroft, placed 39 groups on this list, thus enhancing our homeland security. The catalyst for the Attorney General's most recent request is the role of the UFF and the LVF in fomenting street violence across Northern Ireland this summer and the former organization's brutal murder of Gerard Lawlor, a 19-year-old Catholic, in Belfast in mid-July. Three other Protestant loyalist and Catholic republican splinter groups are already on the Terrorist Exclusion List: the Orange Volunteers, the Red Hand Defenders and the Continuity Irish Republican Army. All five of these organizations have been placed on another State Department register, the Terrorist Financing List, which was established by President Bush's Executive Order 13224 in September 2001 and authorizes the government to freeze the assets of named terrorist groups and individuals that support them. By adding the UFF and the LVF to the Terrorist Exclusion List now, Ashcroft can ratchet up the pressure on them --- and protect U.S. security. He has asserted that this step "will help secure our borders against those who would come to the United States to commit terrorist acts or to raise funds to finance terrorist operations." Ashcroft should be praised for this initiative. He should also encourage the U.S. government to apply similar sanctions against the most notorious terrorist organization in Northern Ireland, the Provisional Irish Republican Army, the paramilitary wing of Sinn Fein. The Provisional IRA should be put on both the Terrorist Exclusion and Terrorist Financing Lists. It should also be placed on the State Department's most serious roster, its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. This watchlist, first compiled in 1997 and updated every two years by the Secretary of State in consultation with other government departments, currently comprises 33 groups, such as Hamas, al Qaida and the Real IRA, the breakaway republican outfit responsible for the mass murder of 29 people in Omagh in 1998 and the killing of a man in Londonderry on Aug. 1 this year. Groups designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations are subject to the same penalties associated with the Exclusion and Financing Lists. Alien members can be denied entry visas or deported from the United States and U.S. financial institutions must freeze their assets. Also, it is a criminal offense for any person in the United States or subject to its jurisdiction to provide funding or other material support to them. Officially designating groups as Foreign Terrorist Organizations has other positive effects, according to government officials: It heightens public awareness about their activities, stigmatizes them, deters contributions, and signals to other countries our seriousness of purpose in confronting them. The State Department has never designated the Provisional IRA a Foreign Terrorist Organization, because it has preferred to nurture the peace process in Northern Ireland. But this policy, relentlessly pursued by the Clinton Administration in the late 1990s, has damaged democracy.

As you can see actions have been taken against IRA splinter organizations and I can assure you that should the Provisional IRA step out of line the consequences will be swift and meaningful.

Richard Haas, Bush's special envoy to Northern Ireland, has certainly taken a hard line on the IRA. Haas has confronted UUP leader Trimble on several occasions and has offered the following quotes on the IRA "We view paramilitaries and the sectarianism that allows them to thrive as the chief obstacle to normalization". Following the return of direct rule, he also flatly stated that paramilitaries "must go out of business".


Al Qeada, Iran, Somoza, Marcos, Pinochet etc...The usual cast of characters that is brought out when the discussion turns to “US terrorism”. Please recall that in most if not all of the cases typically cited the US turned against the supported regime/organization and actively pursued it's dissolution. In some cases the results were favorable and democracy has bloomed, in others (Nicaragua, Iran) another form of tyranny arose or an enemy of the US was created.

This is situational politics, primarily arising from Cold War policies. If we perceive communism as the scourge that it actually was than the choice between communism and an anti-soviet dictator or agent was a difficult one. Often the choice in intervention is not between good and evil but between evil and very, very evil. Need I remind you that we allied with Josef Stalin in WWII and he was certainly no saint but the result was a desirable one based upon the situation at the time.

If we assume that the US created Osama Bin Laden and Saddam (I don't believe that these particular statements are accurate however I will assume that they are true for the sake of argument) and supported them would it not be US responsibility to remove them as we have?

My apologies to the moderators for addressing the topic only tangentially.

brinn Preaching to the choir is right! My error of attributing the remark to you instead of amf. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.


If President Bush Lied to us about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) to get us into the war in Iraq then did not all of the people quoted above do the same?

IMO, EVERYONE (previous administrations, current administration, friends/allies abroad, etc.) were all on the same page about Iraq having WMD. UN Resolution 1441 and those resolutions prior to 1441 were agreed to and signed unanimously. So far, WMD have not been found and there are still 1,200 inspectors searching, so the final chapter on WMD has not been finalized. The controversy is not whether Saddam had WMD, but whether Saddam and his WMD posed a grave and gathering danger in the decision to go to war without waiting for the final results in the last round of inspections. Because, so far, there have been no large stockpiles of WMD found in Iraq, then Bush and those in his administration must have lied in using the threat of WMD as an excuse to invade Iraq.

Until the final report is in by those on the investigating committee proving otherwise, I will give President Bush and his administration the benefit of the doubt and my full support. If the Iraq investigation turns up information proving there were lies, deception, cover ups, etc. by President Bush and his administration, then just as with Watergate and President Nixon, I will withdraw my support and agree with whatever decision is made for the consequences based on the charges.

Is it not more likely, considering how many people on both sides of the Aisle believed Saddam had WMDs and programs to produce more, that the Intelligence was flawed, outdated or even more likely, based on bad assumptions including the fact that Saddam regularly claimed to have these weapons himself?
When we lay blame for this solely on the President are we not ignoring the fact that both house of congress approved this war and believed (based on their own words above) that it was justified?

They were agreeing to President Bush's decision to go to war based on the information provided them in addition to the information based upon the reasons President Bush (and those in his adminstration) gave them for going to war. When it is all said and done...the President can gather all the input from all the inside and outside sources he wishes....but the final decision is in the hands of the President as is the responsibility for the consequences-good or bad.

Are we doing a disservice to the country by claiming people lied about WMDs rather then looking at the mistakes made and the possibility that the mistakes are likely due to the lack of human intelligence, the gutting of intelligence agency budgets and the miles of red tape that the intelligence community has to negotiate?

IMO, yes because it has not yet been proven without a doubt that anyone including the President lied. Several members on both sides of the aisle are growing very concerned that the campaign rhetoric is getting way out of hand and that not only is it a negative reflection on the candidates and parties, but it could be harmful to our country as a whole. Amen!

Folks, let's take a step back and use a little tool I like to call common sense.

Saddam Hussein had been known to previously possess weapons of Mass Destruction. He had used these weapons before, both against Iran and against his own people. In 1998, after defying 15 UN resolutions, the Iraqi regime expelled UN weapons inspectors; the last obstacle for a potential secret Iraqi WMD program had been removed.

After the devastating attacks of 9/11/01, the world reassessed Iraq and decided that all uncertainties regarding Iraq's proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction had to be taken care of. Throughtout the Spring and Summer of 2002, the world pleaded with Hussein to reconsider allowing the return of UN inspectors. Each time, the answer was a defiant "No." Finally, late in the Fall of 2003, Iraq's answere to the question of UN inspectors suddenly shifted to a "Yes." and so Weapons Inspectors returned.

The former Iraqi regime was also asked to submit a report, accounting for all previous known stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction. When the report came back, thousands of tons of Mustard and Nerve agents were UNACCOUNTED for and still remain unaccounted for to this day.

Now let's employ this almighty common sense mentioned earlier. All spring and summer, Iraq refused to allow UN weapons inspectors, before suddenly choosing to allow them. Common sense would lean towards Iraq possesing these weapons, and taking all Spring and Summer to hide them. What else would explain the motivation for expelling the WMD inspectors in the first place, and then after defiant refusals, suddenly allowing them back in if not hide them.

While Iraq's defiance of UN resolutions and its sudden and suspicious shift in WMD inspectors policy would offer strong circumstantial evidence, the fact that they were unwilling to account for banned nerve agent offers virtually no other psychological scenario that would account for Saddam's activities. If they had been destroyed, then why not account for them?

In addition to this strong circumstantial evidence, the fact that there was certain hard evidence that seemed to point towards a WMD program offers an even stronger case for war.

I can see no other scenario that would account for Saddam's activity prior to the invasion, although Im sure someone could come up with an extremely remote and obscure possibility.

pligger, I agree completely with your post. What the naysayers repeatedly forget to mention are the weapons we knew Saddam had and were never accounted for. Today these folks say it looks like the weapoms may have been destroyed as early as 1992. But no one knows that for sure and no one knew that just prior to the war.

Although he could not find them, Blix could not positively state there were or are no WMD. All UN Weapons inspectors, less one, I have heard or read about believed the Bio/Chem WMDs were stil there. The US Senate and US House Intell Committees believed the Weapons were still there. The intelligence services of America, Canada, Britain, France, and Spain believed the WMD were there. The leaders of Great Britain and Spain were as convinced of Saddam's possession of WMD as the Bush administration.

We still don'r know what happened to the unaccounted for Bio/Chem WMD. But we do know that Saddam hid armorments all over Iraq. We are uncovering unknown ammo dumps everyday. We've even uncovered his jet fighters, that were buried in the desert.

On the other hand, it could have all been an elaberate hoax by Saddam to cover up the fact that he was never able to militarily recover from the Gulf War. A hoax that cost him his power and maybe his life. However, even if we find this surmise is true, it in no way changes the pre-war known intelligence that led to our invasion of Iraq.

Logic dictates that somewhere in the desert of Iraq are Bio/Chem WMDs. That we haven't found them are not proof they do not exist. Even the remotest chance they are there and could fall into the wrong hands would spell disaster for thousands of people. Those who say it is too improbable, should remember the main lesson of the 9/11 massacres, "Nothing is too improbable" when it comes to terrorism.

All that having been said, I'm afraid your common sense approach is falling on the deaf ears of those Americans and Foreigners who want GW Bush out of office at any cost.

1SG

Good point pligger and GDan,

I think what a lot of people don't/refuse to see was the fact that Saddam either had a full hand (the WMD's) or he was bluffing. And the international community called his bluff. You don't claim to not have any WMD's, then throw out inspectors for four years. What does that instill in eveyone? A feeling that Saddam might be doing his song and dance while getting rid of/hiding his stockpiles in the middle of the Iraqi desert or God knows where else, maybe?

You don't bend and break the rules of and taunt the international community and not expect to be dealt with. And the fact that the UN (at the prodding of the French, Russians, and Chinese who were all doing business with the regime) refused to enforce it's own rules frightens me.

Simple: You're all wrong. We have been supporting Saddam with weapons and aid for twenty years, up until the gulf war, he asked GHWB for his opinion on his intended invaision of Kuwait, and daddy bush said he had no opinion. Then when Iraq invaded Kuwait we reversed our positionand and everyone knows what happened then. The Gulf War and following sanctions reduced Iraqi infrastructure to rubble. Fast Forward to 2003, suddenly Saddam is a madman, and no one ever mentions that we were all buddies just a little while ago. George Orwell'd roll over in his grave when he saw this doublethink. WAR IS PEACE!
Titus, this isn't poker. Full hand or not Saddam never once threatened America, sure he demonized us to his own people, especially after we began sanctioning away all the money he was supposed to spend on services, but still no threats. However this administration, not only made up (lied) about the existence of WMD's, they used the ethereal presence of these doomsday weapons as symbol of a real threat. Saddam has nukes, he's a threat, except Saddam doesn't have nukes, so in fact, he is not a threat. The administration wants to step back and say IT WAS THE CIA'S FAULT! But regardless, if this is true, their choice interpretation of the CIA's intelligence is what led to this war, so the mistake was STILL this administration's. No matter how you choose to look at it, Bush and his cronies were more than happy to appease all their friends in the Gingrich group, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin etc. The US defense policy board is almost entirely ex-board members of major energy and defense corporations. There is a conflict of interest.
Its hard to say whether someone is lying, because usually you can't just know the real answer. Instead you have to think about whether this person or group is trustworthy, and what are the chances they are lying to themselves. In the realm of presidential politics WAR IS GOOD, so if Bush and friends used bad intelligence as an opportunity to invade a non-invasive country (resulting in over what, 600 american deaths, and god knows how many Iraqis) shouldn't this administration be held accountable?
If Bush lied about WMD's or at least over emphasized "bad" intelligence resulting in a war, SOMEONE isn't doing their job. Isn't that easy to understand? Oops, we were wrong about the whole WMD thing, but Saddam was a bad guy isn't it better he's gone? NO! The administration is trying to change the PRETENSE for war so we'll all forget about how unbelievably guilty the Bushies should feel for "accidently" starting a war. And if you support Bush and the war for any of the reasons I've mentioned, do me a favor, read a book.
Yes congress and the senate are part responsible, because it seems that our "great" checks and balances are out of balance.

I think the actual question has been buried here, particularly the first one. Which really doesn't deal with the "responsibility" for Iraq at all. The Bush administration and the congress declared the war so they share the blame.

Meanwhile the first question

goes unanswered. Democrats and Republican, Bush and Clinton all said Iraq had WMD and was developing nuclear weapons. To say that Bush made this up, that the government knew it wasn't a threat is simply untrue.

I attack the issue from a different angle here, the link also provides the documentation for my claim that Clinton said the same thing about Iraq as Bush (and sent a lot of bombs to accentuate his point....)
The US on Iraq, a look back...

The WMD charge isn't Bush's big lie, though it may be a whole list of people's big mistake...

Although I would love to keep this a partisan issue, it's true, both dems and reps used this info. Keep in mind that most of the people emplyed in washington don't just get fired when a new president is elected, most government people stay there. Groups like the PNAC and the Carlyle group are constantly lobbying any administration for agendas that serve their purpose (energy and defense or in other words war and oil). Clinton didn't listen to groups like the PNAC as much as Bush senior, but he still bent over backwards for many major corporate interests. And yes the clinton administrations was dedicated, with the medias help, to making the WMD threat as scary as possible. The problem is not just Bush Jr. Its all of the people who are involved with special interest: Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Randy Sheunemann, Donald Rumsfeld, Newt Gingrich, Dan Quayle, James Schlesinger.... the list is exhaustive. Corporate interest has hijacked american democracy, and the proof is in the pudding, er current events I mean. It sounds like a lame conspiracy theory, and a year ago I would have discounted it, but after researching the involvment of ket officials in special interest, it looks like everyone sat on a board at some time, and holds stocks in a defense or oil company. This is no longer a government by the people for the people, it is a government for corporate interest. Keep in mind, in the COURT OF LAW, corporations have EXACTLY the same rights as you and I... but whose voice is really listened to?

It makes sense that both Dems and Repubs be put to blame, but it doesn't seem that way. You have to understand that they were not the ones who presented/gathered the informationt to the UN and the country. Yes, many Democrats and Republicans voted for the war, but mainly from the "false" information provided to them (yet to be truly determined).

The administration along with Bush should be put to blame if there aren't any WMDs linked to Iraq.

False information from whom?

It has been noted that many Democrats including Bill Clinton supported "preemptive" attacks on Iraq (Operation Desert Fox) well before GWB even reached office.

Bush didn't fool the Congress into this, everyone knew as well as he exactly what was at stake. The problem apparently is that none of them knew well enough...

Before the first tomahawk was launched into Baghdad, there were a variety of sources that one could find that clearly disputed the administration's assertions. The chemical weapons trailer bungle, the IAEA report, and fears of the UAV that would disperse chemical agents were all debunked early on through a variety of sources. Some of them were through NGOs like the U.N. and the inspectors, who so far, have been on the mark. I wrote both my congressmen about Colin Powell's assertions at the U.N. and clearly outlined how each was based on at best-conjecture(how has now admitted as much recently) Both of them refuse to acknowledge that they were wrong in any way. I don't buy the "none of them knew it" line since there are plenty of alternative news sources that documented early on the falseness of these claims. However, there was no call for calmness and to let the U.N. do it's job, this war was rushed intentionally.

Yes, democrats are to blame as well. Many liberals did the right thing and criticized him in bombing a a Sudanese medical plant(just imagine how many children died as a result of that)

You might want to post some of those “on the mark quotes’. The way I see it most western countries as well as the UN and the former Clinton Admin. were firmly convinced Iraq had WMD. In fact there is no proof they are not still there. Certainly Kay did not, I repeat did NOT say that Iraq didn’t have and may not still have WMD.


Here are a few people who supported the Bush/Powell view.



"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002


"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

Sudanese Medical Plant? The Clinton bombing I'm referring to is a rather extensive bombing of Iraq in 1998 "to destroy their capability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons" which Clinton swore up and down they had.
Again more on that below...
The US on Iraq, a look back...

Clinton had questions asked of him over intelligence. The evidence seems to suggest that he installed Richard Butler head inspector as a spy for the CIA, prompting an awful lot of Iraq's non-cooperation which he then bombed them for.

Was he wrong?

I say absolutely not. Years of inspections had proven Iraq had WMD, they should only expect spies after telling lie after lie to everyone who would listen. Clinton and Bush weren't oil-hungry liars. They were presidents concerned with the security of the country who overestimated a threat because Iraq's lack cooperation would not allow them to reach a reasonable conclusion. If we want to blame someone, Saddam Hussein is at the head of the list....

Admin here tells me this is the appropriate place to discuss the question "Did Bush lie?" So, if it's not off-topic ...

Did Bush lie? Do we have evidence? I mean, his speeches are available (http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_speeches/president_bush_speeches_index.htm). We can know, at least if it's in a speech.

I am told that his statement "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," State of the Union address, Jan 28 2003, was a lie.

As best I can tell, the British government did give this report (and Niger is not happy about it): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3100089.stm

...and the CIA, while doubting the report, told the President that his speech was OK by them: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/12/...eech/index.html

...so am I missing something? Or is the case against Bush based on some other statement?

Yes, other officials were afraid that Saddam had WMDs. What I'm talking about is the blizzard of stories that inundated the media that the media(the ones who didn't dig too deeply) put on the front pages. My senators and representatives went on and on about the chemical weapons trailer(it wasn't) the UAVs(they weren't) as well as the IAEA report(it didn't say what they said it said) These items came up one after another. As each one was being summarily analyzed and then-exposed as a fraud, then another reason would crop up. These issues prove that this administration played fast and loose with the facts. yes, Clinton and his cronies felt that Iraq had WMDs. Why did our current president not let the U.N. do it's job?? As far as I can tell, Blix is still right and Powell is still wrong when it comes to the analysis of WMDs(the number of, or lack thereof of them) The Clinton folks may have bombed Iraq, but they didn't try and use trumped up-iffy "evidence" to do it.

Turnea--I apologize, I'm not sure why the Sudanese bombing thing came up, I forgot briefly that Clinton had ordered a bombing in Iraq. In relation to the Sudan thing, I believe firmly that it was a war crime and that if there was ever an impeacheable offense--it should've been that.

Heh, they didn't use evidence at all...

This is exactly the kind of avoidance that leads one that leads on to believe much of this blaming of Bush is based on politics and not fact. Clinton ordered inspectors out of Iraq prior to his bombing just as Bush did. Clinton installed spies in the inspectors and then denied it. Clinton bombed "WMD sites" with no attempt to show evidence at all.

It's a crime for Bush but its okay for Clinton? Looking for some consistency here...

More on Desert Fox...

The press was guilty too, while looking skeptically at Bush's claims, when Clinton said he was targeting WMD, well that must be it. It's not like he would lie or anything...

Same claims of WMD and UAV's, same concerns about terrorism and civilians deaths. But what's the rhetoric? Bush is a war criminal, Clinton did fine.

The question is asked, if Bush lied, did Clinton?

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I was stating that the bombing of the Sudanese medicine plant was a crime. An extra-territorial action that was undertaken with harmful affects against civilians. Democrats and Republicans are similar when it comes to an interest in imperialism. The anti-war groups have been consistent in critcizing democratic presidents. Remember Madeline Albright being shouted down at a college assembly to trot out the Clinton bombing campaign? They had everything scripted just perfectly-then some rabble-rouser(god bless them) threw a wrench into the whole process.

...and perhaps you misunderstood me (though I don't see how) I think it is perfectly clear that the question I asked, the post I wrote and indeed this thread has nothing to do with a bombing in Sudan. This is about Iraq. Your criticism of Bush does not match up with the facts.


I pointed out that Clinton made the same claims and made no effort to justify his bombing campaign at all.

...and yet somehow this is all okay.

I don't fault either of them, but if Bush lied then yes, Clinton lied about Iraq.

It is illogical to believe that President Bush lied about WMDs before Iraq's liberation. Why would he lie about it, knowing full well that we would go in to find nothing, and then have egg all over his face? It would only make sense if President Bush had such a huge vendetta against Saddam Hussain that he was willing to put his presidency on the line for it.

As it turns out, the hunt for WMDs is not over. Just recently, Al-Qaida operatives were rounded up in Jordan with WMDs. Their intentions were to attack Jordanian and U.S. facilities. Estimates say that up to 20,000 people could have died if their attack had succeeded. It's too soon to know where they got it, but it does raise some eyebrows.

I just read an article from the BBC stating that Denmark had intelligence that Iraq had WMD before the US invasion. It seems as though the consensus is that all countries, including Iraq, had faulty intelligence. Story

Thank you NewsMax, the only news agency that makes Fox News look liberal.

In fact, Jordanian authorities arrested some men suspected of being members of Al Qaeda. An unamed, unidentified source in the Jordanian government stated that the operatived might have had chemical materials, enough to build a bomb that could kill 20,000 people.

Other slightly more sane news agencies are reporting it as totally unconfirmed, some agencies (such as CBC) dont even bother mentioning the chemical products as they are simply rumour.


Oh, but wait...

But what if the story as reported in its most extreme biased form by NewsMax IS true?

Even though no other media outlet has even mentioned Iraq, while Newsmax rushed to make baseless speculation based on a rumour about a rumour... what if they turn out to have been right?

Please explain to me again how the US invasion of Iraq made the world a safer place? Even if the worst of the crackpot conspiracy theorists are true, all that proves is that the Invasion or Iraq put WMD in the hands of international terrorists, thus making the world a far more dangeous place.


Go Bush.

Newsmax isn't the only news agency reporting the chemical weapons and Al Qeada link. Associated Press also put that in their report. From that report.....



Perhaps CBC is "more sane", but they also appear to be behind the curve on this one.

I think we can all agree that anything on these WMD from Jordan coming from Iraq is pure speculation, it is better simply to leave that be.

What we already know for a fact is that Clinton and Bush said nearly the exact same things about Iraq.

If George W. Bush is a liar on Iraq, then so is William J. Clinton.

If George W. Bush is a baby-killing war criminal, then so is Bill Clinton.

Once we get around that little fact, debating Iraq will be so much easier,