The Dangerous Lie That ‘Bush Lied’

More tap dancing. If you had proof, you would have produced it long ago.

 

Here is the claim.

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/saddams-wmd-moved-to-syria-an-israeli-says/24480/

 

Clearly, arm chair generals who have never served are unaware that US senators do NOT order any member of our military to do anything.

Pathetic.

 

I know what they said after the fact. I also know how they voted, then bragged about how hawkish they were.

 

every one of them made definitive statements saying there was WMD and every one of them voted to send troops into Iraqi period and of argument give up you have lost the debate

 

And, in your universe, a claim is proof? Have I got that right?

 

Because you say so? I asked how many of the democrats you listed said there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs... The answer is none. I asked how many suggested that Saddam's people had met with Muhammed Atta before. 9/11. The answer is none. I asked how many had ordered our troops into battle. The answer is none. Come back when. You have more than bull(*)(*)(*)(*) to stand upon

 

No, a claim is not proof, but this guy who made the claim has impressive credentials, so his claim does carry some weight and credibility to them.

So i'd like to see an investigation into this before I make any conclusions.

But there has been real evidence of Saddam having WMDs, such as having yellow cake, and using chemical weapons in warfare against the Kurds, killing tens of thousands of them.

To deny this is asinine.

 

who would deny that Saddam used chemical weapons against the kurds? Certainly not me. Are you suggesting that action was sufficient grounds to invade, conquer, and occupy Iraq at a cost of $2T and 40K casualties?

 

I just came across an article that has me currently reevaluating my previous stand on the war. I'm beginning to think it truly was a lie, but not the way the liberals make it out to be.

I had thought that we had mutual defense treaties with Kuwait, so that was my own personal justification for the war, because I believe that a deal made in good faith should be honored.

But after reading this article, I have some serious thinking to do.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a073190kellynotreaty

 

First....start watching something besides FAUX NEWS!!

There's a couple of reasons we invaded the sovereign country Iraq but the main one was when Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate George Herbert Walker Bush(41) in Qatar, circa 1993. Read this letter written by the key Republicans in 1998 and then consider the 935 lies told by George Walker Bush(43) and his cabinet:

December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is
not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more
serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming
State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course
for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy
that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That
strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand
ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment
of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have
demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to
uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to
ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially
diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely,
experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological
weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter
many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets.
As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of
confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a
seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam
does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we
continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and
allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil
will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the
first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the
magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness
of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or
threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake
military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein
and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a
strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts.
Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the
dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN
resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.
In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in
the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of
mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security
interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future
at risk.

Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick


NOW!!! Here is documentation of the 935 lies told by Bush and all the president's men and woman:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/

 

To save folks the trouble the report is based upon a study completed by CPI, another progressive Soros funded "watchdog group". When liars accuse other liars of lying I tend not to waste my time with it.

 

Wow, the ignorance of your source astounds me.

Kuwait was a member in the UN and as such they are entitled to protection by the other UN nations if they are invaded.

That is why we went there. It was a UN obligation.

What the hell is this crap about a mutual defense treaty?

lol

 

Isn't that thing a mutual defense treaty?

But I digress, it was something I came across a long time ago.

Now I just don't know.

 

Leftists honestly believe their lies are truth and their fantasies are fact. How sad.

 

Oh bullspittle.

Remember Colin Powell?

 

You really don't understand how this game works?

All the people you cited are CFR. They were advocating for an invasion of Iraq even before the PNAC was. These people you mention, Hillary, and Albright, and Pelosi, they were "sure there were WMD in Iraq" because they wanted to invade. Of course they were sure, they were absolutely certain! You can't justify an invasion if you're uncertain, right? So they get the cretins at the CIA to concoct some BS, which apparently was trivially easy under that scumbag Tenet (Mr. Slam Dunk, you remember him). You do know that the CIA is in bed with the State Department, yes? Remember Victoria Nuland and Michael Morell?

 

It's not relevant.

Bush was in power, in the executive branch, as commander in chief.

The same way Obama is now. He runs the war the way he wants. He's using the world's most inefficient method to pick off the enemy one by one with drones, but that's the way he wants to do it, and he gets away with saying it's "not war" so he doesn't have to ask the Congress for funding.

 

even when they document the time and place of the lies they list against Bush? Are you suggesting that he and his team are blatantly misquoted, or are you saying that the quotes listed are not, in fact, lies? In either case, could you provide an example of such chicanery?

 

Democrats were not "beating the WMD drum".

When Sadaam sent a few fighters up to challenge the no fly zone, as he did periodically, these voices started up. You'll find plenty of Republcians amongst them as well, notably Gingrich, who was the chief cheerleader in Congress for the Project for a New American Century.

This chorus ususally got sung around the time that Clinton, under UN auspices, would launch airstrikes to destroy the airfield or the missle base the Iraqis had attacked from. Claims about WMD's were conventional political wisdom, not verified facts.

Contrary to your false characterization, not one of these people were advocating for the US to launch a military invasion of Iraq.

You can't make that case no matter how carefully you cherry pick your quotes, because it's a lie (as is your premisis).

PNAC was where the idea of the Iraq war strated, and there wasn't a single Democrat in its ranks.

 

These RWAs actually NOW believe that it was the Democrats pushing for war with IRaq incessantly and that Bush grudgingly ordered the invasion...pushed to his wit's end by the bellicose Dems.

In short, there is nothing too ridiculous or far-fetched that an RWA won't believe if it insulates the RW leadership from the treacherous and murderous responsibility for the illegal Iraq invasion. That's how they roll.


The question is not whether Bush lied, it's 'when did he not lie?".

Here is one Bush lie: October 7, 2002 Bush addressed the nation and said that Hussein was “a great danger to our nation”, either by using “unmanned aerial vehicles” with “chemical or biological” payloads “for missions targeting the US” or by providing these weapons to a “terrorist groups or individual terrorists to attack us.” The exaggerations and fabrications on Iraq's "threat" flowed like stupidity from the mouth of Palin.

The day after the speech, George Tenet declassified a letter, signed by John McLaughlin, (deputy director of the CIA) which stated that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the security of the country and would not be unless the US attacked Iraq. That letter predated Bush’s speech by a matter of hours. Since the CIA is an agency of the Executive Branch and the director reports only to the president, it is unthinkable that Bush did not know the contents of the letter stating Iraq was no imminent threat to the US.

Also, the letter simply corroborated the same finding in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate issued by the CIA to Bush on 10-1-2002. The CIA did not consider Hussein an imminent threat.

Bush said, “I’ll be making up my mind (to invade Iraq) based on the latest intelligence.”

When Bush told the nation on 10-7 that Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of the country, he was telling millions of Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA was telling him.

That is a BIG lie.

Bush had his minions repeat lies like these in Congressional Briefings to sway congressmen who distrusted Bush but did not want to appear weak in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The president, in an that sort of emergency, is a leader with great constitutional powers and a strong bully-pulpit. Bush abused those things by lying to the Congress and country to start an unprovoked war with Iraq.

- - - Updated - - -

Who is George Soros? Was he a CIA asset that informed Bush that Iraq was no threat to the US unless the US invaded the country?

 

This was the shamful low point in the career of a great man.

He knew what he was presenting was thin gruel. He was a lot more blunt in private about the veracity of the "case" he was presenting too.

He should have been. His case was dissected by experts all over the world and revealed to be bogus within 24 hours.

Much of Bush's case for war was similarly dispatched on arrival.

The US press did little of the dispatching. US media, generally played mouthpiece to the Bush adminstration, and we didn't see serious questioning of any of this in US media until well AFTER it was too late.

Not so the rest of the world. Bush's imperial agenda was obvious to even casual observers everywhere else.

But the US public needed to be scared and sold a story. It never would have gone to war if they had simply been told that Bush planned on sending an army to occupy Iraq, install a puppet government, and give most of the oil to Bush's oil patch buddies. (which was the real plan, almost in its entirity).

 

The Germans told the Bush Administration that Curveball the informant was a deranged Iraqi cab driver and his intel was nonsense. But Curveball told the Bush Admin what it wanted to hear...that Iraq had all sorts of WMDs to use against the US.

Right. A country the size of California half way around the world is going to take down the USA. hahahahaha

 

Bush knew that the intel used was bad. It was given by a Iraqi defector named Rafid Ahmed Alwan al'Janabi, also know as the codename "Curveball", who got asylum in the US in 1999 by claiming to be a former scientist in Iraq's nuclear and biological weapons program. Bush was warned by boththe British and German governments that al'Janabi was lying, but Bush was simply looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, and did not care if it was bad intel or not.

 

Its hard to tell what Bush was thinking...I don't think he had any sort of vision when he took office much beyond "being president".