Study: False statements preceded war

[GaryC 7]

Geez Loise people....Are you really so delusional and conspiratorial that you actually beleive that sitting U.S. President, along with a select group of "insiders", conspired to lead this country into war.....WHILST......nobody else noticed, for reasons UNKNOWN???? Is this what is known as "fuzzy logic"?

Poleeze, pass out the tin foil hats for everyone here that subsribes to this nonsense as CLEARLY the far left loones are abound in this forum!

Truthiness is the best word to describe what the Bush Administration did. I don't think it was some diabolical scheme, but more of an ideological viewpoint taken to catastrophic extremes. Read about the PNAC and look who's who. Regardless of whether 9/11 happened or not, there were key members of the Bush Administration who thought, ideologically, that removing Saddam Hussein by force would a successful strategy and then after 9/11, to put in the best of terms, did their very best to try to win over public support for the invasion.

I find more fault in the media and those who just rolled over for not asking the right questions (including many Democrats in congress). It's a lesson learned for all of us....never again let power go unchecked.

President Clinton moved our national focus in Iraq from containment to a change in leaders. Clinton also said after he left office in an interview with Larry King that he was sure that Saddam had WMD's and was striving to get more. The policy that resulted in the war started long before Bush was elected.

[Peikko 1,575]

Again with this so called Downing Steet Memo. A secret and unsubstanciated piece of political BS. If this were real the dems would have been all over it. But not one word of it here. Why is that? Because it isn't real. Is that all you got?

Actually, the political climate in the UK was far more skeptical about the whole BS war if you want to know the truth, which I doubt you do. There was a massive outcry by the ordinary people in the UK who objected wholeheartedly to the half truths that were being bandied about. The average UK Joe didn't believe that either war was inevitable or wise, nor did they believe that Sadam Hussein possessed the weapons to effect anyone other than his immediate neighbours. Despite these massive protest Tony Blair went against the popular will and sided with the US in this shoddy affair. That the Democrats in the US didn't take this seriously really has no bearing on what went on in the UK at that time.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Geez Loise people....Are you really so delusional and conspiratorial that you actually beleive that sitting U.S. President, along with a select group of "insiders", conspired to lead this country into war.....WHILST......nobody else noticed, for reasons UNKNOWN???? Is this what is known as "fuzzy logic"?

Poleeze, pass out the tin foil hats for everyone here that subsribes to this nonsense as CLEARLY the far left loones are abound in this forum!

Truthiness is the best word to describe what the Bush Administration did. I don't think it was some diabolical scheme, but more of an ideological viewpoint taken to catastrophic extremes. Read about the PNAC and look who's who. Regardless of whether 9/11 happened or not, there were key members of the Bush Administration who thought, ideologically, that removing Saddam Hussein by force would a successful strategy and then after 9/11, to put in the best of terms, did their very best to try to win over public support for the invasion.

I find more fault in the media and those who just rolled over for not asking the right questions (including many Democrats in congress). It's a lesson learned for all of us....never again let power go unchecked.

President Clinton moved our national focus in Iraq from containment to a change in leaders. Clinton also said after he left office in an interview with Larry King that he was sure that Saddam had WMD's and was striving to get more. The policy that resulted in the war started long before Bush was elected.

True, but Clinton didn't just go in and take out Saddam and if you read what he said, he made it very clear that his administration was aware of the complexity of the problem - of removing Saddam and it's geopolitical consequences. I would argue, that Clinton wasn't thinking to the scope of what the members of the PNAC were in terms of the Middle East. Where previous administrations relied heavily on diplomacy, Bush divided the world up between those who were 'with us' and those 'who were against us.'

It was a tough, new approach towards foreign policy that resonated strongly with neo-cons, who believed that under Clinton's and even Bush Sr.'s administrations, we had shown 'weakness to the enemy.'

Bush and his administration's fatal flaw was not recognizing the complexity of foreign relations....that you can't be a cowboy, slap a badge on and tell all the bad guys to get the hell out of Dodge. It may have made for some feel good resonance with many Americans after the shock of 9/11, but the consequences of simplifying foreign policy into a good guy, bad guy mentality has been disastrous. I just hope that the neo-cons are aware of their shortsightedness. We need someone in office who has better foresight, better wisdom, and definitely better intelligence.

Edited January 24, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[GaryC 7]

Geez Loise people....Are you really so delusional and conspiratorial that you actually beleive that sitting U.S. President, along with a select group of "insiders", conspired to lead this country into war.....WHILST......nobody else noticed, for reasons UNKNOWN???? Is this what is known as "fuzzy logic"?

Poleeze, pass out the tin foil hats for everyone here that subsribes to this nonsense as CLEARLY the far left loones are abound in this forum!

Truthiness is the best word to describe what the Bush Administration did. I don't think it was some diabolical scheme, but more of an ideological viewpoint taken to catastrophic extremes. Read about the PNAC and look who's who. Regardless of whether 9/11 happened or not, there were key members of the Bush Administration who thought, ideologically, that removing Saddam Hussein by force would a successful strategy and then after 9/11, to put in the best of terms, did their very best to try to win over public support for the invasion.

I find more fault in the media and those who just rolled over for not asking the right questions (including many Democrats in congress). It's a lesson learned for all of us....never again let power go unchecked.

President Clinton moved our national focus in Iraq from containment to a change in leaders. Clinton also said after he left office in an interview with Larry King that he was sure that Saddam had WMD's and was striving to get more. The policy that resulted in the war started long before Bush was elected.

True, but Clinton didn't just go in and take out Saddam and if you read what he said, he made it very clear that his administration was aware of the complexity of the problem - of removing Saddam and it's geopolitical consequences. I would argue, that Clinton wasn't thinking to the scope of what the members of the PNAC were in terms of the Middle East. Where previous administrations relied heavily on diplomacy, Bush divided the world up between those who were 'with us' and those 'who were against us.'

It was a tough, new approach towards foreign policy that resonated strongly with neo-cons, who believed that under Clinton's and even Bush Sr.'s administrations, we had shown 'weakness to the enemy.'

Bush and his administration's fatal flaw was not recognizing the complexity of foreign relations....that you can't be a cowboy, slap a badge on and tell all the bad guys to get the hell out of Dodge. It may have made for some feel good resonance with many Americans after the shock of 9/11, but the consequences of simplifying foreign policy into a good guy, bad guy mentality has been disastrous. I just hope that the neo-cons are aware of their shortsightedness. We need someone in office who has better foresight, better wisdom, and definitely better intelligence.

Your forgetting what it was like just after 9/11. The whole country rep and dem alike had the same mind set. I even remember that after congress gave Bush the go ahead to attack they insisted on one more vote so they could all go on record as supporting the war. The only difference is Bush really believed in what he was doing and the dems were in it for political points with the American public. When public opinion soured the dems started this Bush lied business. If the war had gone well and was over in 6 months none of this would have been brought up in any serious way.

Oh, and the for us or against us remark? Bush wasn't the only one to say it.

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)

During an interview on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather

September 13, 2001

[Fandango 1,439]

Let alone Dems and Repubs....look at what many world leaders were saying about their intel on SH and his plans....

France didn't stand against us cos they didn't believe he was a threat...they were against making a move before we were officially attacked.

[GaryC 7]

Let alone Dems and Repubs....look at what many world leaders were saying about their intel on SH and his plans....

France didn't stand against us cos they didn't believe he was a threat...they were against making a move before we were officially attacked.

Most of Europe was in bed with Saddam and the oil for food scam. France and Germany didn't want to join in because they were getting rich.

[Dan J 277]

Geez Loise people....Are you really so delusional and conspiratorial that you actually beleive that sitting U.S. President, along with a select group of "insiders", conspired to lead this country into war.....WHILST......nobody else noticed, for reasons UNKNOWN???? Is this what is known as "fuzzy logic"?

Poleeze, pass out the tin foil hats for everyone here that subsribes to this nonsense as CLEARLY the far left loones are abound in this forum!

Truthiness is the best word to describe what the Bush Administration did. I don't think it was some diabolical scheme, but more of an ideological viewpoint taken to catastrophic extremes. Read about the PNAC and look who's who. Regardless of whether 9/11 happened or not, there were key members of the Bush Administration who thought, ideologically, that removing Saddam Hussein by force would a successful strategy and then after 9/11, to put in the best of terms, did their very best to try to win over public support for the invasion.

I find more fault in the media and those who just rolled over for not asking the right questions (including many Democrats in congress). It's a lesson learned for all of us....never again let power go unchecked.

President Clinton moved our national focus in Iraq from containment to a change in leaders. Clinton also said after he left office in an interview with Larry King that he was sure that Saddam had WMD's and was striving to get more. The policy that resulted in the war started long before Bush was elected.

True, but Clinton didn't just go in and take out Saddam and if you read what he said, he made it very clear that his administration was aware of the complexity of the problem - of removing Saddam and it's geopolitical consequences. I would argue, that Clinton wasn't thinking to the scope of what the members of the PNAC were in terms of the Middle East. Where previous administrations relied heavily on diplomacy, Bush divided the world up between those who were 'with us' and those 'who were against us.'

It was a tough, new approach towards foreign policy that resonated strongly with neo-cons, who believed that under Clinton's and even Bush Sr.'s administrations, we had shown 'weakness to the enemy.'

Bush and his administration's fatal flaw was not recognizing the complexity of foreign relations....that you can't be a cowboy, slap a badge on and tell all the bad guys to get the hell out of Dodge. It may have made for some feel good resonance with many Americans after the shock of 9/11, but the consequences of simplifying foreign policy into a good guy, bad guy mentality has been disastrous. I just hope that the neo-cons are aware of their shortsightedness. We need someone in office who has better foresight, better wisdom, and definitely better intelligence.

Your forgetting what it was like just after 9/11. The whole country rep and dem alike had the same mind set. I even remember that after congress gave Bush the go ahead to attack they insisted on one more vote so they could all go on record as supporting the war. The only difference is Bush really believed in what he was doing and the dems were in it for political points with the American public. When public opinion soured the dems started this Bush lied business. If the war had gone well and was over in 6 months none of this would have been brought up in any serious way.

Oh, and the for us or against us remark? Bush wasn't the only one to say it.

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)

During an interview on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather

September 13, 2001

Not the whole country. I never supported the war from the start.

But then as a politician, at a time when nationalism was very strong, could you really truly vote against the war and still stay elected?

But your right, if Bush went in with a real strategy instead of neo-con idealism, he may have been able to finish it in a short period of time. But he didn't. He dragged the war out. His evidence and descions were looked at much more closely. Then most people who were blinded by nationalism started to see that the case for war wasn't really all there.

[Peikko 1,575]

There may be some truth in the 'in bed' statement, but then again, um, let's just say no goverment is clean handed when it comes down to economic expediency now are they?

Edited January 24, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I see that - once again - none of the Bushies actually manages to substantially refute Bush's blatant al-Libi lie.

[Fandango 1,439]

Let alone Dems and Repubs....look at what many world leaders were saying about their intel on SH and his plans....

France didn't stand against us cos they didn't believe he was a threat...they were against making a move before we were officially attacked.

Most of Europe was in bed with Saddam and the oil for food scam. France and Germany didn't want to join in because they were getting rich.

Yes, you're right, my response was a bit too simplistic. That was the 'official' response....I was trying to point out that even those who weren't allies didn't deny there was a threat.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

The irony to this thread is the "fact" that the only U.S. President in the past 20 years, having been proved to actually be a consistant pathological liar is a democratic president, Bill Clinton; having been impeached for that very infraction......

Let's not even dwell on the fact that he was asleep at the wheel for eight years as the islamic jihadist attacked us.....

Exactly!

We should have taken out Saddam in 1998 or better yet in about 1995 when he started willfully disregarding the cease-fire agreement he signed with us to stop the first gulf war. We never did end that war. The weapons of mass destruction was the least of the reasons Saddam should have been removed from power. That was the one we presented to the UN trying to get support from the rest of lame a$$ nations in the UN.

We were justified to do it without the WMD argument. He was killing his own people at an alarming rate, violated the cease fire agreement and failed to comply with 17 UN resolutions. Case closed. The WMD thing was just the icing on the cake. We should have told the rest of the world to hell with you. Went ahead and did it 9 months earlier and it would have been a lot better all the way around. The left has once again, as always strengthened our enemies, as a result another larger and more costly conflict will result.

With the ineffectual leadership of Bill Clinton we didn't take care of it when we should have.

I don't think some of the people remember the whole history from the beginning. Maybe the are not old enough or maybe the just have selective memories.

[GaryC 7]

I see that - once again - none of the Bushies actually manages to substantially refute Bush's blatant al-Libi lie.

Bush may have been wrong, he may have cherry picked a few of his facts but he didn't lie. But the Bush haters seem to want to lay it all at his feet when in reality congress was falling all over itself to let him go to war. I only object to the blatant hypocracy of those that spout the Bush lied and people died bull sh!t. They are the ones that are really lying.

The irony to this thread is the "fact" that the only U.S. President in the past 20 years, having been proved to actually be a consistant pathological liar is a democratic president, Bill Clinton; having been impeached for that very infraction......

Let's not even dwell on the fact that he was asleep at the wheel for eight years as the islamic jihadist attacked us.....

Exactly!

We should have taken out Saddam in 1998 or better yet in about 1995 when he started willfully disregarding the cease-fire agreement he signed with us to stop the first gulf war. We never did end that war. The weapons of mass destruction was the least of the reasons Saddam should have been removed from power. That was the one we presented to the UN trying to get support from the rest of lame a$$ nations in the UN.

We were justified to do it without the WMD argument. He was killing his own people at an alarming rate, violated the cease fire agreement and failed to comply with 17 UN resolutions. Case closed. The WMD thing was just the icing on the cake. We should have told the rest of the world to hell with you. Went ahead and did it 9 months earlier and it would have been a lot better all the way around. The left has once again, as always strengthened our enemies, as a result another larger and more costly conflict will result.

With the ineffectual leadership of Bill Clinton we didn't take care of it when we should have.

I don't think some of the people remember the whole history from the beginning. Maybe the are not old enough or maybe the just have selective memories.

The selective memories here will take your breath away. It's pitifull really.

[HAL 9000 96]

Geez Loise people....Are you really so delusional and conspiratorial that you actually beleive that sitting U.S. President, along with a select group of "insiders", conspired to lead this country into war.....WHILST......nobody else noticed, for reasons UNKNOWN???? Is this what is known as "fuzzy logic"?

Poleeze, pass out the tin foil hats for everyone here that subsribes to this nonsense as CLEARLY the far left loones are abound in this forum!

Truthiness is the best word to describe what the Bush Administration did. I don't think it was some diabolical scheme, but more of an ideological viewpoint taken to catastrophic extremes. Read about the PNAC and look who's who. Regardless of whether 9/11 happened or not, there were key members of the Bush Administration who thought, ideologically, that removing Saddam Hussein by force would a successful strategy and then after 9/11, to put in the best of terms, did their very best to try to win over public support for the invasion.

I find more fault in the media and those who just rolled over for not asking the right questions (including many Democrats in congress). It's a lesson learned for all of us....never again let power go unchecked.

I call it a very convenient, yet tragic, event. It most definitely consolidated public support to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Not Iraq.

[HAL 9000 96]

The irony to this thread is the "fact" that the only U.S. President in the past 20 years, having been proved to actually be a consistant pathological liar is a democratic president, Bill Clinton; having been impeached for the that very infraction......

Let's not even dwell on the fact that he was asleep at the wheel for eight years as the islamic jihadist attacked us.....

Yet he did not partake in the unnecessary loss of human life as a result of his lies. Apples and oranges again.

If Clinton got impeached for killing his own sperm and lying about it, then we should apply the same illogical argument and have Bush impeached for lying to get our soldiers killed.

ahem........maybe if he'd paid more attention to briefings and was thinking with the big head instead of getting his willy wet, he'd not created that fiasco we had in somalia.

I also remember someone saying "I never had sexual relations with that woman".

OMG, that was 10 years ago and NOBODY DIED over it!

Sperm did!!!

Has anybody seen my cigars?

maybe in monica's "humidore"

True. Somalia was what it was... a royal waste of time. Then again, it gave the media a great media op for the Tip of the Spear.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The irony to this thread is the "fact" that the only U.S. President in the past 20 years, having been proved to actually be a consistant pathological liar is a democratic president, Bill Clinton; having been impeached for the that very infraction......

Let's not even dwell on the fact that he was asleep at the wheel for eight years as the islamic jihadist attacked us.....

Yet he did not partake in the unnecessary loss of human life as a result of his lies. Apples and oranges again.

If Clinton got impeached for killing his own sperm and lying about it, then we should apply the same illogical argument and have Bush impeached for lying to get our soldiers killed.

Which proves, that as much as you want to believe it, Bush didn't lie to get us into war. If he did the dems would have impeached Bush and Cheney and we would be calling Pelosi Madam President right now. This is all azz covering for the dems. They were all on board for the war in 2003. They went one by one to the mic and said we needed to take him out. Bush didn't force or lie his way to war. The entire country wanted it. President Clinton said the exact same things Bush did using the very same intel.

The Bush lied mantra is nothing more than political hackery. Only the tin foil hat types really believe that Bush lied his way into war. To believe he did requires a "willing suspention of disbelief" in order to forget the run up to the war. The rest are just using the mantra to try and make political points.

Ho-hum.... That simply isn't true.

In addition to the DIA evaluation Big Dog has posted many times - I've referenced (also many times) the Downing Street Memo (big story in the UK, didn't break water over here) in which the then director of MI6 was quoted as saying that Bush had already decided upon war and was essentially fixing the evidence around the pre-determined policy. The UK govt I believe, even admitted of its own volition that it was genuine...

Then there's also the fiasco over the dodgy dossier which was publicly revealed to have been plagiarised from Ibrahim al-Marashi's university thesis (right down to the typos); and the subsequent September Dossier which included highly controversial, badly worded claims and totally untrue claims relating to national security threats. Not least of course that Bush's 2003 State of the Union address contained an explicit reference to the Nigerian Yellowcake story, which by the time it was included in the speech was already known to be a completely false claim.

Again with this so called Downing Steet Memo. A secret and unsubstanciated piece of political BS. If this were real the dems would have been all over it. But not one word of it here. Why is that? Because it isn't real. Is that all you got?

It's useless arguing with the tin foil hat Bush derangment sufferers. They want to blame Bush then that is what they will do. Forget the facts just blame Bush!! What a bunch of tools.

Withy all due respect - piss off Gary. You didn't receive any exposure to the war debate in Europe, so you write off the whole thing as some sort of fabrication. How f*cking arrogant can you get?