Study: False statements preceded war

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yeah I think someone missed the 2003 State of the Union Speech... lol

Would that be the one where claims about Saddam's alleged attempt to buy Yellowcake Uranium were included, despite their having been debunked some time before?

[HAL 9000 96]

Yeah I think someone missed the 2003 State of the Union Speech... lol

Would that be the one where claims about Saddam's alleged attempt to buy Yellowcake Uranium were included, despite their having been debunked some time before?

"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."

And that was before the war started...

Edited January 28, 2008 by maviwaro

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Sucked for him...

Then again, Bush said he had proof the dude had WMDs. Then soldiers paid and continue paying the price. I love these attempts at continuing to absolve the Bush administration of any responsibility in leading the democratic world.

This WMD argument was a small part of the whole case for war. It did not come into play until the very end of the debate.

The real case was:

* Failing to comply with the 1991 ceasefire agreement.

* Failing to comply with the 17 UN resolutions.

* Failing to comply with proper documentation of weapons declarations and destruction.

All this precedes the current Bush administration by many years.

The focus on the WMD argument is because the left loses all the other arguments in regard to the war so they repeat this one ad infinitum.

The left prefers to see the defeat of their own country while at war, for the political gain they would receive in pinning the blame on the President. I was never a big fan of President Clinton. But I would rather die then undermine my own country in a time of war. No matter who is President. The stakes are too high to be this irresponsible.

That to me, is not a case for, especially not on our own.

Have we attacked every country who didn't follow a UN resolution? Or didn't comply with a ceasefire agreement (I'm pretty sure Israel is on that list)?

I don't even think those reasons are strong enough for most Americans to support a war, much less a first strike. The reasons which the people did support, were either false or misleading.

Dan, When did we go to war with Israel? I don't remember that war. We enforce our ceasefire agreements with other countries. Not all ceasefire agreements.

Since when do we have to have the worlds blessings to defend ourselves? We never ended the war in the first place why should we have asked pretty please of the rest of the world. We must do what is right in spite of the feckless world.

[HAL 9000 96]

Sucked for him...

Then again, Bush said he had proof the dude had WMDs. Then soldiers paid and continue paying the price. I love these attempts at continuing to absolve the Bush administration of any responsibility in leading the democratic world.

This WMD argument was a small part of the whole case for war. It did not come into play until the very end of the debate.

The real case was:

* Failing to comply with the 1991 ceasefire agreement.

* Failing to comply with the 17 UN resolutions.

* Failing to comply with proper documentation of weapons declarations and destruction.

All this precedes the current Bush administration by many years.

The focus on the WMD argument is because the left loses all the other arguments in regard to the war so they repeat this one ad infinitum.

The left prefers to see the defeat of their own country while at war, for the political gain they would receive in pinning the blame on the President. I was never a big fan of President Clinton. But I would rather die then undermine my own country in a time of war. No matter who is President. The stakes are too high to be this irresponsible.

That to me, is not a case for, especially not on our own.

Have we attacked every country who didn't follow a UN resolution? Or didn't comply with a ceasefire agreement (I'm pretty sure Israel is on that list)?

I don't even think those reasons are strong enough for most Americans to support a war, much less a first strike. The reasons which the people did support, were either false or misleading.

Dan, When did we go to war with Israel? I don't remember that war. We enforce our ceasefire agreements with other countries. Not all ceasefire agreements.

Since when do we have to have the worlds blessings to defend ourselves? We never ended the war in the first place why should we have asked pretty please of the rest of the world. We must do what is right in spite of the feckless world.

Read.

To top off Dan's points, Israel has even attacked our Armed Forces, knowing they were attacking us.

[Dan J 277]

Sucked for him...

Then again, Bush said he had proof the dude had WMDs. Then soldiers paid and continue paying the price. I love these attempts at continuing to absolve the Bush administration of any responsibility in leading the democratic world.

This WMD argument was a small part of the whole case for war. It did not come into play until the very end of the debate.

The real case was:

* Failing to comply with the 1991 ceasefire agreement.

* Failing to comply with the 17 UN resolutions.

* Failing to comply with proper documentation of weapons declarations and destruction.

All this precedes the current Bush administration by many years.

The focus on the WMD argument is because the left loses all the other arguments in regard to the war so they repeat this one ad infinitum.

The left prefers to see the defeat of their own country while at war, for the political gain they would receive in pinning the blame on the President. I was never a big fan of President Clinton. But I would rather die then undermine my own country in a time of war. No matter who is President. The stakes are too high to be this irresponsible.

That to me, is not a case for, especially not on our own.

Have we attacked every country who didn't follow a UN resolution? Or didn't comply with a ceasefire agreement (I'm pretty sure Israel is on that list)?

I don't even think those reasons are strong enough for most Americans to support a war, much less a first strike. The reasons which the people did support, were either false or misleading.

Dan, When did we go to war with Israel? I don't remember that war. We enforce our ceasefire agreements with other countries. Not all ceasefire agreements.

Since when do we have to have the worlds blessings to defend ourselves? We never ended the war in the first place why should we have asked pretty please of the rest of the world. We must do what is right in spite of the feckless world.

Defend ourselves? Against what?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sucked for him...

Then again, Bush said he had proof the dude had WMDs. Then soldiers paid and continue paying the price. I love these attempts at continuing to absolve the Bush administration of any responsibility in leading the democratic world.

This WMD argument was a small part of the whole case for war. It did not come into play until the very end of the debate.

The real case was:

* Failing to comply with the 1991 ceasefire agreement.

* Failing to comply with the 17 UN resolutions.

* Failing to comply with proper documentation of weapons declarations and destruction.

All this precedes the current Bush administration by many years.

The focus on the WMD argument is because the left loses all the other arguments in regard to the war so they repeat this one ad infinitum.

The left prefers to see the defeat of their own country while at war, for the political gain they would receive in pinning the blame on the President. I was never a big fan of President Clinton. But I would rather die then undermine my own country in a time of war. No matter who is President. The stakes are too high to be this irresponsible.

That to me, is not a case for, especially not on our own.

Have we attacked every country who didn't follow a UN resolution? Or didn't comply with a ceasefire agreement (I'm pretty sure Israel is on that list)?

I don't even think those reasons are strong enough for most Americans to support a war, much less a first strike. The reasons which the people did support, were either false or misleading.

Dan, When did we go to war with Israel? I don't remember that war. We enforce our ceasefire agreements with other countries. Not all ceasefire agreements.

Since when do we have to have the worlds blessings to defend ourselves? We never ended the war in the first place why should we have asked pretty please of the rest of the world. We must do what is right in spite of the feckless world.

Defend ourselves? Against what?

Yeah - that was my question too.

Clearly there's a threat posed to world safety by old, toothless, half-crippled tigers.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Yeah I think someone missed the 2003 State of the Union Speech... lol

Would that be the one where claims about Saddam's alleged attempt to buy Yellowcake Uranium were included, despite their having been debunked some time before?

That speech was at the tail end of the debate for war. We had been discussing it for many months by that time. Then Colin Powell made the speech to the UN on my birthday Feb. 5th, 2003

I did watch the 2003 State of the Union. I had also been writing my Congressman and Senators for months in support of the war by that time. I also sent letters during the Clinton Administration in support of tough action against Saddam. To no avail.

The Yellowcake claim is still supported by the British Government, which still claims it is true. Saddam's agents were there, but it was never stated that they received any Yellowcake, by anyone.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yeah I think someone missed the 2003 State of the Union Speech... lol

Would that be the one where claims about Saddam's alleged attempt to buy Yellowcake Uranium were included, despite their having been debunked some time before?

That speech was at the tail end of the debate for war. We had been discussing it for many months by that time. Then Colin Powell made the speech to the UN on my birthday Feb. 5th, 2003

I did watch the 2003 State of the Union. I had also been writing my Congressman and Senators for months in support of the war by that time. I also sent letters during the Clinton Administration in support of tough action against Saddam. To no avail.

The Yellowcake claim is still supported by the British Government, which still claims it is true. Saddam's agents were there, but it was never stated that they received any Yellowcake, by anyone.

2003 eh? Seems it was old news a whole year before that...

2002 Memo Doubted Uranium Sale Claim

And then there's A Question of Trust

Greg Thielmann, then a high-ranking official at State's research unit, told TIME that it was not in Niger's self-interest to sell the Iraqis the destabilizing ore. "A whole lot of things told us that the report was bogus," Thielmann said later. "This wasn't highly contested. There weren't strong advocates on the other side. It was done, shot down."

Except that it wasn't. By late summer, at the very moment that the Administration was gearing up to make its case for military mobilization, the yellowcake story took on new life. In September, Tony Blair's government issued a 50-page dossier detailing the case against Saddam, and while much of the evidence in the paper was old, it made the first public claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. At the White House, Ari Fleischer endorsed the British dossier, saying "We agree with their findings."

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

I am sorry Dan, but your reasoning is too twisted for me to take anymore. You only talk in circles and do not have any core beliefs in regard to right and wrong, or truths and falsehoods.

Go ahead and continue to defend dictators and despots while condemning the one country in the world that is actually fighting to ensure Peace, Prosperity, Democracy and the Rule of Law. Does it make you feel good? Do you feel superior somehow?

I can not take your points seriously anymore. You obviously buy into the moral equivalence argument, that Saddam was as just and moral as the American people and we are just as guilty for Saddam's crimes as he is. Maybe more so in your mind. You have my deepest sympathies for your condition. I just pray that your type of thinking meets the scorn and ridicule that it deserves. Or the future is going to be very, very bleak for us all.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am sorry Dan, but your reasoning is too twisted for me to take anymore. You only talk in circles and do not have any core beliefs in regard to right and wrong, or truths and falsehoods.

Go ahead and continue to defend dictators and despots while condemning the one country in the world that is actually fighting to ensure Peace, Prosperity, Democracy and the Rule of Law. Does it make you feel good? Do you feel superior somehow?

I can not take your points seriously anymore. You obviously buy into the moral equivalence argument, that Saddam was as just and moral as the American people and we are just as guilty for Saddam's crimes as he is. Maybe more so in your mind. You have my deepest sympathies for your condition. I just pray that your type of thinking meets the scorn and ridicule that it deserves. Or the future is going to be very, very bleak for us all.

I must have missed the part where he was defending dictators or expressing sympathy for them. I've heard that argument before - usually when people can't understand the point that's being made. It wasn't true on those occasions and it sure isn't true now.

Still... I know I missed the part where you answered his question...

[HAL 9000 96]

Nope. Dan wrote what he wrote in plain old English.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Yeah I think someone missed the 2003 State of the Union Speech... lol

Would that be the one where claims about Saddam's alleged attempt to buy Yellowcake Uranium were included, despite their having been debunked some time before?

That speech was at the tail end of the debate for war. We had been discussing it for many months by that time. Then Colin Powell made the speech to the UN on my birthday Feb. 5th, 2003

I did watch the 2003 State of the Union. I had also been writing my Congressman and Senators for months in support of the war by that time. I also sent letters during the Clinton Administration in support of tough action against Saddam. To no avail.

The Yellowcake claim is still supported by the British Government, which still claims it is true. Saddam's agents were there, but it was never stated that they received any Yellowcake, by anyone.

2003 eh? Seems it was old news a whole year before that...

2002 Memo Doubted Uranium Sale Claim

And then there's A Question of Trust

Greg Thielmann, then a high-ranking official at State's research unit, told TIME that it was not in Niger's self-interest to sell the Iraqis the destabilizing ore. "A whole lot of things told us that the report was bogus," Thielmann said later. "This wasn't highly contested. There weren't strong advocates on the other side. It was done, shot down."

Except that it wasn't. By late summer, at the very moment that the Administration was gearing up to make its case for military mobilization, the yellowcake story took on new life. In September, Tony Blair's government issued a 50-page dossier detailing the case against Saddam, and while much of the evidence in the paper was old, it made the first public claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. At the White House, Ari Fleischer endorsed the British dossier, saying "We agree with their findings."

I can't believe you are pulling out that crackpot Joe Wilson on me. His own report to the CIA contradicts his editorial in the New York Times. He is a phony. Completely discredited.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...4-2004Jul9.html

Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission

Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role

By Susan Schmidt

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, July 10, 2004; Page A09

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.

Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.

The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.

[Cassie 8]

Seems that the Bush administration wasn't the only one making false statements.....

Saddam Hussein let the world think he had weapons of mass destruction to intimidate Iran and prevent the country from attacking Iraq, according to an FBI agent who interviewed the dictator after his 2003 capture.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/27/saddam.cbs/index.html

[HAL 9000 96]

Seems that the Bush administration wasn't the only one making false statements.....

Saddam Hussein let the world think he had weapons of mass destruction to intimidate Iran and prevent the country from attacking Iraq, according to an FBI agent who interviewed the dictator after his 2003 capture.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/27/saddam.cbs/index.html

Yeah, toootally exonerating the Bush admin from going to war right without good intel?

I dunno, I'd rather side with reason before believing a captured dictator with delusions of grandeur.

[Dan J 277]

I am sorry Dan, but your reasoning is too twisted for me to take anymore. You only talk in circles and do not have any core beliefs in regard to right and wrong, or truths and falsehoods.

Go ahead and continue to defend dictators and despots while condemning the one country in the world that is actually fighting to ensure Peace, Prosperity, Democracy and the Rule of Law. Does it make you feel good? Do you feel superior somehow?

I can not take your points seriously anymore. You obviously buy into the moral equivalence argument, that Saddam was as just and moral as the American people and we are just as guilty for Saddam's crimes as he is. Maybe more so in your mind. You have my deepest sympathies for your condition. I just pray that your type of thinking meets the scorn and ridicule that it deserves. Or the future is going to be very, very bleak for us all.

Im definetly not defending dictators, but I am criticizing our actions. Being able to criticizes the actions of our country is at the core of our democracy.

You give all these reasons, why we attacked Saddam, I give you more places where there are similar conditions and situations that we did nothing about and ask why?

There have been many more people killed in Sudan, than by Saddam. But we don't even talk about invading Sudan to put an end to the kill there. Why not?

Israel has defined many more UN resolutions that Iraq did, yet we where are our war plans for Israel?

Isn't part of upholding the rule of law, being fair and consistent to all those who don't follow it? Shouldn't we treat Israel like we do Iraq?

Why is Saddams killing of thousands of Iraqi's inexcusable, but the US military killing of thousands of Iraqi's excusable?

Do you apply your sense of morality to all people? or just those you like?