Study: False statements preceded war

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

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

I do remember and there's plenty of blame to go around. All that I think is relevant to this argument now is how do we prevent making another mistake like we did? We do so by respecting the limits of power in this country. Respect the checks and balances, don't be afraid to ask pointed questions and don't ever let another sitting President and his/her administration railroad us into doing something without thoroughly looking at the complexity of the issue, especially when it involves a lot of American lives.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

I'm glad you pointed that out. I remember that very well - people wrote off Tony Blair right then and there as Bush's poodle - and public opinion was overwhelmingly against the war. In fact, after the whole tuition fees thing people really started to feel as though their democracy had been hijacked and the country was essentially being railroaded by the Blair government.

Of course it didn't much help that the UK Conservative Party, provided piss-poor political opposition... to well... anything (considering the various comedy leader's they elected to run the party after they lost the 1997 election), leaving it up to the Liberal Democrats.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Then you'll know all about the incidents with the fabricated dossier's and Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's Karl Rove?

Gary - all of these things are pieces of the same puzzle that points to the exact same conclusion. However you want to slice it - different sources, different accounts - same story. How do you explain that...?

Bush lied/exaggerated/misrepresented the available evidence to push a pre-medidated case for war - whatever euphemism you want to use to describe it, it still amounts to same thing. Which is what many people have been saying all along.

There were misrepresentations all around. I don't deny that. I just get steamed when people do the Bush lied BS. Bush, Blair, the US congress, the American people and at least some of the people in the UK all wanted to take out Saddam. But for some reason it all comes down to Bush lied. Saddam needed to go. He should have been taken out in the first gulf war. A great many people saw that and made a case to do it. When it got messy they all fell back on the Bush lied ####### in an attempt to deflect their own role in it. That is what I object to. At least be honest about what you (the in general you) did.

Sure - but Bush was the boss. He started the war. Buck stops with him. No?

He was in charge when his administration misrepresented the facts - and its a case of simple deduction to put the various accounts together and read between the lines as to what was going on.

Has nothing to do with Saddam IMO either - Bush widened a limited war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to include a secular (yes brutal, evil whatever you want to call it) regime that had nothing to do with Bin Laden's lot; and... I should add... playing off of the ignorance of the general public (not for the first time) that all those "arab types" are the same in terms of politics and ideology.

So no one else has any responsibility at all? You seem to be missing my point all together. I am objecting to the Bush lied mantra. He may have had bad intel, he may have emphasized some points and soft soaped others but I remember that there was an entire country that WANTED to go to war. I remember congress person after congress person come to the mic and profess that they saw the intel and stated that Saddam must go. I remember President Clinton saying that he thought Saddam had WMD's and needed to go. I remember Tony Blair saying that Saddam had WMD's and he needed to go. I remember an entire western world crying for war and now all we get is Bush lied and people died. How disingenuous can you get? I personally don't care if there were WMD's. I wanted Saddam out even if all he had were pop guns. So I don't care if the intel was wrong or over stated. But I think the real lier's here are the Bush haters that will not acknowledge that those that are calling Bush a lier are themselves a lier.

I remember protests in the streets in the UK and much of Europe - so "the entire western world crying for war" would seem to be a bit of an exaggeration IMO. In fact, I remember watching Tony Blair and various cabinet MP's being chewed out by member's of the public on BBC Question Time over a period of weeks, and by MPs from all 3 parties (including many of his former inner circle) at Prime Minister's question time.

Whether or not you object to the "mantra" it doesn't change my opinion that Bush lied, nor does it alter one whit of the evidence out there in the public domain that leads me and many other people to the same conclusion.

Edited January 24, 2008 by Number 6

[GaryC 7]

Please give us actual citations that state your claims, not what you believe you can remember. Not to insult your memory, but those are easily suggested ex post facto. You've been repeatedly proven wrong time and time again here. Lets see if you can substantiate your claims.

And yes... Bush has been the most repulsive US President we've ever had. Not one single man has done more to damage the very principles we as a Democracy stand for.

Thats your opinion. I haven't been proven wrong about anything. Why don't you substantiate your claims? Your just a Bush hater. Truth to you means nothing, only your hatred and selective memory. Your opinion means less than nothing to me so who cares what you think.

[HAL 9000 96]

Lol, Ok Gary. My claims have a public record. State of the Union Speech after State of the Union Speech only proves my point and paints your defense of the indefensible as exactly that.

[GaryC 7]

Lol, Ok Gary. My claims have a public record. State of the Union Speech after State of the Union Speech only proves my point and paints your defense of the indefensible as exactly that.

Bull sh!t. Bad intel isn't a lie. But who cares. Saddam is out and that is all that matters. You can have all the sour grapes you want. It's kind of fun to watch the BDS people cry about it. So please carry on. In the end what I wanted to happen did happen.

[HAL 9000 96]

Yeah, Gary, Saddam in gone. By your logic you can thank Bill Clinton for setting into that into motion.

And once again, the record is clear. Bush lied, soldiers died. I guess DIA is no longer a valid intelligence gathering agency and bad intel is just that before its communicated upon to the Commander in Chief whom uses it to fit an agenda that was in plain sight now... and according to you, since the Clinton presidency.

[GaryC 7]

Yeah, Gary, Saddam in gone. By your logic you can thank Bill Clinton for setting into that into motion.

And once again, the record is clear. Bush lied, soldiers died. I guess DIA is no longer a valid intelligence gathering agency and bad intel is just that before its communicated upon to the Commander in Chief whom uses it to fit an agenda that was in plain sight now... and according to you, since the Clinton presidency.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

The ONE thing in this debate that is obvious! Is the LEFT side, trying desperately to AVOID answering Lisa's video! You guys are SO invested in what's been FED to you! Your belief in it has become your savior, but yet it is so so weak! Things are looking GOOD in Iraq but yet you won't even recognize it or make any reference to it at all. Your POLLS, Dieing soldiers are all references of the negative.

Saddam Hussein has gotton what he deserved and things there are getting GOOD! Thats the REALITY of the matter! You want more soldiers dead so you can PROFESS FAILURE! All the while saying how much you CARE! You have been UNMASKED and you also are as TRANSPRENT as the window I see through, everyday!Lets not talk about yesterdays news.Today is the subject after all.While Hillary and Barrack fight over who's blacker, repubs talk about making america a place where INDVIDUALS can make their own way through LIFE without the bullshite promises of the PAST.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Mavi, come up with some original stuff from your soul instead of some cheap azz regurgitated bullshite that you heard from somebody else.

[HAL 9000 96]

When Clinton sends off 3,000 plus soldiers to die in Iraq we'll talk in cartoons. That should steam you up but then again, "Bad intel isn't a lie. But who cares." Otherwise the joke about what is reality and what is a lie will continue to stare directly at you Gary.

But take it directly from the mouth of the liar:

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

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.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

WMDs... I remember when a leader was held accountable for what came out of his mouth.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

When Clinton sends off 3,000 plus soldiers to die in Iraq we'll talk in cartoons. That should steam you up but then again, "Bad intel isn't a lie. But who cares." Otherwise the joke about what is reality and what is a lie will continue to stare directly at you Gary.

But take it directly from the mouth of the liar:

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

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.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

WMDs... I remember when a leader was held accountable for what came out of his mouth.

Dude, your so reachin in your back pocket. Let it go

[GaryC 7]

Here is the truth. But I know you don't care about the truth, only blaming Bush. You have BDS so bad man.

Panel: Global Intel Failure Led to Iraq WMD Belief

FORT LEAVENWORTH, Kan. — The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee (search) has concluded that a worldwide intelligence failure led to the belief that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the war, the panel's chairman said Thursday.

Sen. Pat Roberts (search), R-Kan., said he expects his committee to release at least part of the report next week, probably Wednesday.

Interviewed after a groundbreaking ceremony for a new building, Roberts said the report generally concludes that intelligence agencies worldwide engineered an "assumption train" that led them to conclude that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Roberts said various Iraqi military officials thought other Iraqi officials controlled weapons of mass destruction, and that there was evidence that Iraq was poised to become the "Grand Central Station" of a trade in such weapons.

"These conclusions literally beg for changes within the intelligence community," he said. "What we had was a worldwide intelligence failure."

In Washington, the House Armed Services Committee's senior Democrat, Missouri Rep. Ike Skelton (search), said the conclusions "could very well be correct."

"The intelligence we got, particularly on Iraq and regarding weapons of mass destruction, just didn't turn out to be correct," Skelton said.

And Roberts suggested that even Saddam himself believed his regime had weapons of mass destruction.

"People who had the WMD and all of that either kept it, sold it, hid it, so on and so forth," Roberts said. "Saddam, I think, still thinks today that he had it."

Roberts said the committee found that intelligence agencies did not rely enough on "human intelligence" gathering after 1998. And after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, he said, intelligence agencies were more likely to base conclusions on incomplete information because they were worried about further attack.

"What you had was a great intelligence assumption train," he said. "Everybody assumed that Saddam Hussein would reconstitute his program.

"There was a lot of empirical evidence in regards to ties to terrorism, and so the assumption train just added on more cars. It wasn't backed up by the necessary backup to make those kind of conclusions."

Last month, former chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay (search) suggested that no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq. Such weapons were a reason President Bush's administration gave for going to war last year.

But Roberts also quoted what he said was Kay's conclusion: "That country had become a very chaotic state and was about to be Grand Central Station for the real proliferation of weapons of mass destruction — you know, willing buyer, willing seller."

Furthermore Roberts said, "When we talk to some of the military generals of the Iraqi Republican Guard, one general will say, 'I thought General So-and-so had it.' You talk to General So-and-so, and he says, 'I thought he had it.' Saddam thought he had it as well."

Roberts said the panel will make its conclusions public, but he didn't know how much supporting information will be included because of ongoing discussions with the Central Intelligence Agency about how much material must remain classified.

For weeks, the committee and the CIA had been in conflict about how much of the material in the reports must remain classified. Roberts said initially the CIA removed more than half of the information in the 410-page report.

Roberts said the changes "eviscerated" the report, but he still hopes to see at least 80 percent of it made public.

"We got into a situation here where people whose job it is to classify things, if we took a primary or elementary reading book and the sentence said, `See Spot run,' they would probably classify 'Spot,"' Roberts said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124448,00.html

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! The SILENCE. I need a left wing website that can argue my FEELINGS!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Gary,He BAILED OUT! MaMa called him to bed.

The left wing promises have always been EMPTY. Hopefully someday the dissappointments of the past will ring in their heads.It truly must be a biotch to be soooooo dependant on a dream that comes from a false PROMISE and the disappointment that follows only brings more false HOPE.Following never pays, no matter what you are promised! Are you RICH YET?