Why Do People Think The Bush Administration Lied About WMDs in Iraq?

You ignore the fact that Halliburton is the kind of company that makes money whether there is actual fighting or not. Because they were a big part of the logistics chain supply U.S. forces stationed in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait enforcing sanctions and no fly zones against Iraq. They received several no bid contracts from the CLINTON ADMIN. to do those very jobs.

 

Depends on the situation. We had no fly zones to protect minority groups in Iraq from attack by Saddam Hussein.

 

As I believe I made clear, what if the surgeon believed you had cancer and the other doctors he consulted with agreed with him?

You cannot claim then that he lied.

 

Even IF what you say were true, that the others concurred he did have WMDs, why didn't they take action?

The obvious answer was revealed with how massively f****d up the Iraq war turned out. It destabilized the ME and spurred the birth of ISIS in the vacuum of Saddam's fall, and shifted the balance of power to Iran. This is no longer theory, it's historical fact.

Why are you even rehashing this? What is the point?

 

This guy answers your questions far better than I could.

NO, SYRIA DOESN'T HAVE SADDAM'S CHEMICAL WEAPONS

 

And? We still violated Saddam's airspace.

If China started flying over Texas saying they were protecting illegal immigrants from potential attack by Trump and we shot at them, who would be the one's committing the act of war and who would be the one's justified in shooting?

 

Because if he hadn't lied about it, congress would have never allowed the invasion....and it was cover for his failure to protect this country on 9/11, which the FBI had warned him about the probable attack. And Shrub's approval rating was as low as Trump's, until he fooled us into the invasion...then it went way up until we found out he was lying to get approval for the war, and wasted $5 trillion tax payer dollars. But Trump will now take Shrub's place, as the worst POTUS in U.S. history.

 

No other nation had the means to depose Saddam Hussein.

I'm bringing it back up because the "narrative" that "Bush lied, people died" has been used and is used to this day to bludgeon the views of those of us who see a strong, interventionist, overwhelmingly military powerful United States to be a vital force for good around the world and important for the overall benefit of the United States.

The bad thing about the invasion of Iraq wasn't that it happened at all but that the U.S. didn't use overwhelmingly massive force and was too reluctant to use massively deadly lethal action. We let the Turks get away with not allowing us to stage the 4th Infantry Division out of their territory which would've crushed many of the bad actors who later turned Iraq upside down. And when we had the opportunity we didn't simply roll on in to Syria and end that problem.

 

How do you know that? Syria has chemical weapons right now and has been using them.

 

So being wrong and lying are the same thing to you?

 

So you're going with inept rather than dishonest?

I remember it all pretty well. There was Cheney with his "1%" possibility...He said if there was a 1% chance that it was true we had to invade. He KNEW

There was the Downing street memos

There was Chalabi

There was the outing of CIA agents

There was ALL THE ****ING LYING

And then all the dead bodies.

 

A declaration of war is the constitutional thing to do. That's how things are supposed to work. Anything else is illegal occupation and invites blowback like we saw on 9-11.

For all of our illegal occupation all over the world and for all of the trillions /printed spent each year on it, I haven't seen a constitutional declaration of war since 1942 with Rumania, now Romania, I guess.

 

they lied for several reasons:

1. Bush was angry Saddam tried to kill his dad.

2. Bush's oil buddies wanted the oil.

3. Bush's Zionist buddies wanted Iraq removed as a threat to Israel.

4. Israel wanted to reopen the Iraq-Jordan-Haifa oil pipeline.

 

I think there is a point... yeah, i woulld agree that the bush administration THOUGHT. that iraq had WMD. and further i think they had good reason to think this. And so in that in that sense they did not lie.

However they also exagerated the evidence. Like for example rumsefelds statement that. “We know exactly where the wmd are located.” There are several other examles where the certainty of the evidence was grossly exagerated and misrepresented the available evidence.

Leaving that aside. Lets say that the administration legitimately believed sadam had wmd. Ok. But eventually it became clear they were wrong. By wrong, i mean that if the real facts dad been known, the congress and public would not have supported the invasion. So. Mistakes were made. But did bush ever say. We made a mistake! No. So apparently they knew what was later found, or not found.

Btw. It is indisputable that a large portion of the anerican public cane to believe sadam was connected to 911. This was clearky not true. And the reason we came to believe this untruth because of what the bush administration said. Which was imo basically the result of administration prevarication

 

Armchair generals are a dime a dozen.

 

Read the article!

 

Well you can say that they were wrong but you can't show that they knew there were no WMDs and pretended that there were just because they were wrong.

 

Nations do not declare war anymore. Only twice has it been done by any nation in the world since World War Two IIRC.

 

What I was saying is that Congress routinely circumvents the Constitution. And we let them. This is a monumental no no.

Now you've been walking this Earth a lot longer than me, it seems, and you're likely far, far, wiser in many ways, and I'll give you that respect, but you have to give me this. You just have to. Because it's true.

The thinking man would ask what's next?

 

Worse still, why do they refuse to educate themselves on what all the inspectors were reporting to the UN at the time.

EVERY inspection report contained concerns by the teams that WMD's were indeed present somewhere, as all the evidence, lack of coorperation, refusal to allow entry to sites previously approved, indicated.

All of this was reported and is still available for public review.

https://www.iaea.org/OurWork/SV/Invo/chronology.html

People need to review reports from not only the IAEA, but from UNSCOM and UNMOVIC

 

I'm only 50 years old. The Constitution has normally been treated merely as a generalized guideline and not an exact blueprint for how to run the government. That has been its saving grace and why its still relevant. It's ambiguity.

 

Oh, I thought tht was you in your avy. Sorry. You're right, it has been treated as nothing more than a generalized guide.

Article 1 Section 8 is rather clear, though. Congress' responsibility is not to have a majority vote on passing war responsibilities onto the executive branch. What that does is completely remove the states from considering it as an amendment which is clearly required by the constitution. Congress is effectively transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President.

Ah well. Crazy stuff.

 

My avatar is that of my dad who died at the age of 88 last February. The entire "declare war" power for congress is largely an anachronism given that

1) Nations don't do that anymore.
2) In the age of nuclear weapons, the president (for entirely practical reasons) has the full power and authority to order military action that could kill more people in an hour than have died in all the wars throughout history. Thus obtaining a declaration of war for military action many orders of magnitude less seems rather pointless.

 

He didn't.

 

Did the people who predicted a Hillary victory in the 2016 election lie?