Go to the link and read the interviews, then check the links to news articles on the left side of the page.
When you get through, you'll know who started the chain of "evidence" about the Iraqi WMDs.
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/index.htm
Oh, this is an NSA website so, you could be monitored.
Did Bush Lie?
Is this a rhetorical question?
http://www.thenation.com/article/other-lies-george-bush/
Did Bush Lie?
Is this a rhetorical question?
In other words, you haven't read the transcripts, or the various national news reports.
(edit for spelling)
[Edited on 1/18/2016 by Jerry]
Did Bush Lie?
Is this a rhetorical question?
In other words, you haven't read the transcripts, or the various national news reports.
(edit for spelling)[Edited on 1/18/2016 by Jerry]
I've read a lot if things. And one thing that has been made crystal clear to me from all of that reading is that presidents lie. All of them. And people lie about the lies. All the time. Sometimes it is done in the name of national security, sometimes it is politics. Sometimes it is criminal, and sometimes it is inconsequential. But in any case, the answer to your question is yes.
It would be more relevant to determine what lies are being told currently on the debate stages and by who.
What difference does it make if Bush lied about anything? He begrudgingly admits to maybe one mistake (Harriet Myers) and has stated clearly that he has no regrets and sleeps soundly at night. Did what he wanted to do whenever he wanted to do it for eight years, and was admired and vehemently supported by millions who were happy to suggest at any time that anyone who dared not agree with Bush in any way was committing acts tantamount to treason.
At this point, it matters not what he did or did not do.
It would be more relevant to determine what lies are being told currently on the debate stages and by who.
That really doesn't matter either. Red Team vs. Blue Team. Cheer for your team. That's it.
It would be more relevant to determine what lies are being told currently on the debate stages and by who.
That really doesn't matter either. Red Team vs. Blue Team. Cheer for your team. That's it.
Even if it is as you say it does matter. The Red Team and the Blue Team both have to choose who their candidate will be. And for those of us who are not on either team it will continue to matter until election day. But in 2016 to say Bush lied is not really useful. I'm sure he did. So did JFK. How is that knowledge going to change my life?
Did Bush Lie?
Is this a rhetorical question?
In other words, you haven't read the transcripts, or the various national news reports.
(edit for spelling)[Edited on 1/18/2016 by Jerry]
I've read a lot if things. And one thing that has been made crystal clear to me from all of that reading is that presidents lie. All of them. And people lie about the lies. All the time. Sometimes it is done in the name of national security, sometimes it is politics. Sometimes it is criminal, and sometimes it is inconsequential. But in any case, the answer to your question is yes.
So, you are willing to concede that in the point of the Iraqi WMD case Bush went with what was believed to be true and didn't, as so many who oppose him say 'Bush lied and people died"? Have you also found the answer as to who actually started that chain of events and why?
(Trying to stay on topic of the WMDs)
Did Bush Lie?
Is this a rhetorical question?
In other words, you haven't read the transcripts, or the various national news reports.
(edit for spelling)[Edited on 1/18/2016 by Jerry]
I've read a lot if things. And one thing that has been made crystal clear to me from all of that reading is that presidents lie. All of them. And people lie about the lies. All the time. Sometimes it is done in the name of national security, sometimes it is politics. Sometimes it is criminal, and sometimes it is inconsequential. But in any case, the answer to your question is yes.
So, you are willing to concede that in the point of the Iraqi WMD case Bush went with what was believed to be true and didn't, as so many who oppose him say 'Bush lied and people died"? Have you also found the answer as to who actually started that chain of events and why?
(Trying to stay on topic of the WMDs)
Not sure why you think I would or why it even matters so much to you. But if you are trying to make a case for something, just make it already. I've read the "article" at the main link but I'm not about to go thumbing through more than a dozen old news stories searching for whatever smoking gun you think you've found. Tell us exactly what you are driving at or move on.
That said, I'll play along to this extent...let's just pretend for a minute that Bush never said anything he didn't believe was 100% true. That would mean that he was convinced/duped into believing a false pretext for committing this country to an invasion and war...is that some kind of exoneration in your eyes? If he didn't lie his way into invading Iraq, then the alternative is that he presided over a massive foreign policy blunder, perhaps the biggest in the history of our country...thousands of US service men and women killed, tens of thousands of Iraqis killed (many of not most of them non-combatants), an entire country turned upside down, and of course billions and billions of US taxpayer dollars spent first destroying and then trying to rebuild a foreign country while sending our own into a financial black hole. So take your pick, he either lied or f*cked up but either way the disastrous results are the same and we, along with the rest of the world, are still paying the price and will be for years to come.
[Edited on 1/19/2016 by gondicar]
...he presided over a massive foreign policy blunder...
I think just about everyone, even folks who supported the invasion at the time, realize now that Iraq was a major blunder. Dick Cheney will never publicly admit it but I am sure even he is aware.
Did Bush Lie?
Is this a rhetorical question?
In other words, you haven't read the transcripts, or the various national news reports.
(edit for spelling)[Edited on 1/18/2016 by Jerry]
I've read a lot if things. And one thing that has been made crystal clear to me from all of that reading is that presidents lie. All of them. And people lie about the lies. All the time. Sometimes it is done in the name of national security, sometimes it is politics. Sometimes it is criminal, and sometimes it is inconsequential. But in any case, the answer to your question is yes.
So, you are willing to concede that in the point of the Iraqi WMD case Bush went with what was believed to be true and didn't, as so many who oppose him say 'Bush lied and people died"? Have you also found the answer as to who actually started that chain of events and why?
(Trying to stay on topic of the WMDs)
Not sure why you think I would or why it even matters so much to you. But if you are trying to make a case for something, just make it already. I've read the "article" at the main link but I'm not about to go thumbing through more than a dozen old news stories searching for whatever smoking gun you think you've found. Tell us exactly what you are driving at or move on.
That said, I'll play along to this extent...let's just pretend for a minute that Bush never said anything he didn't believe was 100% true. That would mean that he was convinced/duped into believing a false pretext for committing this country to an invasion and war...is that some kind of exoneration in your eyes? If he didn't lie his way into invading Iraq, then the alternative is that he presided over a massive foreign policy blunder, perhaps the biggest in the history of our country...thousands of US service men and women killed, tens of thousands of Iraqis killed (many of not most of them non-combatants), an entire country turned upside down, and of course billions and billions of US taxpayer dollars spent first destroying and then trying to rebuild a foreign country while sending our own into a financial black hole. So take your pick, he either lied or f*cked up but either way the disastrous results are the same and we, along with the rest of the world, are still paying the price and will be for years to come.
[Edited on 1/19/2016 by gondicar]
With what you wrote, it sounds like you only read the "header" for the website. The information is in the interviews, and condensed versions are in the news articles. All the information is there, but it seems that you don't want to learn what, and who, caused the chain of events that led up to the WMD decisions.
If you had decided to look further, you would have found the information that Saddam Hussein himself started the dis-information about the WMDs and stopped the inspectors from checking the sites because he didn't want Iran to find out the WMDs did not exist. Saddam used the fake WMD story to hopefully keep Iran from invading Iraq.
If you wish to get the "Cliff Books" version of the interviews, click on the top link to the Washington Post article.
Did Bush Lie?
Is this a rhetorical question?
In other words, you haven't read the transcripts, or the various national news reports.
(edit for spelling)[Edited on 1/18/2016 by Jerry]
I've read a lot if things. And one thing that has been made crystal clear to me from all of that reading is that presidents lie. All of them. And people lie about the lies. All the time. Sometimes it is done in the name of national security, sometimes it is politics. Sometimes it is criminal, and sometimes it is inconsequential. But in any case, the answer to your question is yes.
So, you are willing to concede that in the point of the Iraqi WMD case Bush went with what was believed to be true and didn't, as so many who oppose him say 'Bush lied and people died"? Have you also found the answer as to who actually started that chain of events and why?
(Trying to stay on topic of the WMDs)
Not sure why you think I would or why it even matters so much to you. But if you are trying to make a case for something, just make it already. I've read the "article" at the main link but I'm not about to go thumbing through more than a dozen old news stories searching for whatever smoking gun you think you've found. Tell us exactly what you are driving at or move on.
That said, I'll play along to this extent...let's just pretend for a minute that Bush never said anything he didn't believe was 100% true. That would mean that he was convinced/duped into believing a false pretext for committing this country to an invasion and war...is that some kind of exoneration in your eyes? If he didn't lie his way into invading Iraq, then the alternative is that he presided over a massive foreign policy blunder, perhaps the biggest in the history of our country...thousands of US service men and women killed, tens of thousands of Iraqis killed (many of not most of them non-combatants), an entire country turned upside down, and of course billions and billions of US taxpayer dollars spent first destroying and then trying to rebuild a foreign country while sending our own into a financial black hole. So take your pick, he either lied or f*cked up but either way the disastrous results are the same and we, along with the rest of the world, are still paying the price and will be for years to come.
[Edited on 1/19/2016 by gondicar]
With what you wrote, it sounds like you only read the "header" for the website. The information is in the interviews, and condensed versions are in the news articles. All the information is there, but it seems that you don't want to learn what, and who, caused the chain of events that led up to the WMD decisions.
If you had decided to look further, you would have found the information that Saddam Hussein himself started the dis-information about the WMDs and stopped the inspectors from checking the sites because he didn't want Iran to find out the WMDs did not exist. Saddam used the fake WMD story to hopefully keep Iran from invading Iraq.
If you wish to get the "Cliff Books" version of the interviews, click on the top link to the Washington Post article.
What I see is you connecting dots to support what you want to believe.
Did Bush Lie?
Is this a rhetorical question?
http://www.thenation.com/article/other-lies-george-bush/
In other words, you haven't read the transcripts, or the various national news reports.
(edit for spelling)
[Edited on 1/18/2016 by Jerry]
I've read a lot if things. And one thing that has been made crystal clear to me from all of that reading is that presidents lie. All of them. And people lie about the lies. All the time. Sometimes it is done in the name of national security, sometimes it is politics. Sometimes it is criminal, and sometimes it is inconsequential. But in any case, the answer to your question is yes.
So, you are willing to concede that in the point of the Iraqi WMD case Bush went with what was believed to be true and didn't, as so many who oppose him say 'Bush lied and people died"? Have you also found the answer as to who actually started that chain of events and why?
(Trying to stay on topic of the WMDs)
Not sure why you think I would or why it even matters so much to you. But if you are trying to make a case for something, just make it already. I've read the "article" at the main link but I'm not about to go thumbing through more than a dozen old news stories searching for whatever smoking gun you think you've found. Tell us exactly what you are driving at or move on.
That said, I'll play along to this extent...let's just pretend for a minute that Bush never said anything he didn't believe was 100% true. That would mean that he was convinced/duped into believing a false pretext for committing this country to an invasion and war...is that some kind of exoneration in your eyes? If he didn't lie his way into invading Iraq, then the alternative is that he presided over a massive foreign policy blunder, perhaps the biggest in the history of our country...thousands of US service men and women killed, tens of thousands of Iraqis killed (many of not most of them non-combatants), an entire country turned upside down, and of course billions and billions of US taxpayer dollars spent first destroying and then trying to rebuild a foreign country while sending our own into a financial black hole. So take your pick, he either lied or f*cked up but either way the disastrous results are the same and we, along with the rest of the world, are still paying the price and will be for years to come.
[Edited on 1/19/2016 by gondicar]
With what you wrote, it sounds like you only read the "header" for the website. The information is in the interviews, and condensed versions are in the news articles. All the information is there, but it seems that you don't want to learn what, and who, caused the chain of events that led up to the WMD decisions.
If you had decided to look further, you would have found the information that Saddam Hussein himself started the dis-information about the WMDs and stopped the inspectors from checking the sites because he didn't want Iran to find out the WMDs did not exist. Saddam used the fake WMD story to hopefully keep Iran from invading Iraq.
If you wish to get the "Cliff Books" version of the interviews, click on the top link to the Washington Post article.
What I see is you connecting dots to support what you want to believe.
What I want to believe doesn't matter. What I know is that Saddam himself gave the interview and explained why he started the 'dis-information" about the WMD.
What I wish is that people whom I had been led to believe were somewhat intelligent and sensible would take the facts as presented and use those rather than some made up jingle.
ps. got rid of a lot of the "quote" descriptions to keep the text from being scrunched up.
Jerry, Jerry, Jerry....while I commend you on finding this information and pointing it out, allow me to be the first to say, it will not change one thing about people and what they think.
Indeed. It doesn't matter how many people died or were injured, or how much money was spent doing so. The important thing is that some liberals might have been wrong 12 years ago.
Gondicar, stay on topic please.
Did Bush Lie?
Is this a rhetorical question?
In other words, you haven't read the transcripts, or the various national news reports.
(edit for spelling)
[Edited on 1/18/2016 by Jerry]
I've read a lot if things. And one thing that has been made crystal clear to me from all of that reading is that presidents lie. All of them. And people lie about the lies. All the time. Sometimes it is done in the name of national security, sometimes it is politics. Sometimes it is criminal, and sometimes it is inconsequential. But in any case, the answer to your question is yes.
So, you are willing to concede that in the point of the Iraqi WMD case Bush went with what was believed to be true and didn't, as so many who oppose him say 'Bush lied and people died"? Have you also found the answer as to who actually started that chain of events and why?
(Trying to stay on topic of the WMDs)
Not sure why you think I would or why it even matters so much to you. But if you are trying to make a case for something, just make it already. I've read the "article" at the main link but I'm not about to go thumbing through more than a dozen old news stories searching for whatever smoking gun you think you've found. Tell us exactly what you are driving at or move on.
That said, I'll play along to this extent...let's just pretend for a minute that Bush never said anything he didn't believe was 100% true. That would mean that he was convinced/duped into believing a false pretext for committing this country to an invasion and war...is that some kind of exoneration in your eyes? If he didn't lie his way into invading Iraq, then the alternative is that he presided over a massive foreign policy blunder, perhaps the biggest in the history of our country...thousands of US service men and women killed, tens of thousands of Iraqis killed (many of not most of them non-combatants), an entire country turned upside down, and of course billions and billions of US taxpayer dollars spent first destroying and then trying to rebuild a foreign country while sending our own into a financial black hole. So take your pick, he either lied or f*cked up but either way the disastrous results are the same and we, along with the rest of the world, are still paying the price and will be for years to come.
[Edited on 1/19/2016 by gondicar]
With what you wrote, it sounds like you only read the "header" for the website. The information is in the interviews, and condensed versions are in the news articles. All the information is there, but it seems that you don't want to learn what, and who, caused the chain of events that led up to the WMD decisions.
If you had decided to look further, you would have found the information that Saddam Hussein himself started the dis-information about the WMDs and stopped the inspectors from checking the sites because he didn't want Iran to find out the WMDs did not exist. Saddam used the fake WMD story to hopefully keep Iran from invading Iraq.
If you wish to get the "Cliff Books" version of the interviews, click on the top link to the Washington Post article.
What I see is you connecting dots to support what you want to believe.
What I want to believe doesn't matter. What I know is that Saddam himself gave the interview and explained why he started the 'dis-information" about the WMD.
What I wish is that people whom I had been led to believe were somewhat intelligent and sensible would take the facts as presented and use those rather than some made up jingle.
ps. got rid of a lot of the "quote" descriptions to keep the text from being scrunched up.
I actually just went and read the first link and I'm now more convinced than ever the the Bush admin would have said/done anything to justify invading Iraq, and they trumped up the WMD cover in order to justify it. So thanks for confirming that!
[Edited on 1/21/2016 by gondicar]
Did Bush Lie?
Is this a rhetorical question?
In other words, you haven't read the transcripts, or the various national news reports.
(edit for spelling)[Edited on 1/18/2016 by Jerry]
I've read a lot if things. And one thing that has been made crystal clear to me from all of that reading is that presidents lie. All of them. And people lie about the lies. All the time. Sometimes it is done in the name of national security, sometimes it is politics. Sometimes it is criminal, and sometimes it is inconsequential. But in any case, the answer to your question is yes.
So, you are willing to concede that in the point of the Iraqi WMD case Bush went with what was believed to be true and didn't, as so many who oppose him say 'Bush lied and people died"? Have you also found the answer as to who actually started that chain of events and why?
(Trying to stay on topic of the WMDs)
Not sure why you think I would or why it even matters so much to you. But if you are trying to make a case for something, just make it already. I've read the "article" at the main link but I'm not about to go thumbing through more than a dozen old news stories searching for whatever smoking gun you think you've found. Tell us exactly what you are driving at or move on.
That said, I'll play along to this extent...let's just pretend for a minute that Bush never said anything he didn't believe was 100% true. That would mean that he was convinced/duped into believing a false pretext for committing this country to an invasion and war...is that some kind of exoneration in your eyes? If he didn't lie his way into invading Iraq, then the alternative is that he presided over a massive foreign policy blunder, perhaps the biggest in the history of our country...thousands of US service men and women killed, tens of thousands of Iraqis killed (many of not most of them non-combatants), an entire country turned upside down, and of course billions and billions of US taxpayer dollars spent first destroying and then trying to rebuild a foreign country while sending our own into a financial black hole. So take your pick, he either lied or f*cked up but either way the disastrous results are the same and we, along with the rest of the world, are still paying the price and will be for years to come.
[Edited on 1/19/2016 by gondicar]
With what you wrote, it sounds like you only read the "header" for the website. The information is in the interviews, and condensed versions are in the news articles. All the information is there, but it seems that you don't want to learn what, and who, caused the chain of events that led up to the WMD decisions.
If you had decided to look further, you would have found the information that Saddam Hussein himself started the dis-information about the WMDs and stopped the inspectors from checking the sites because he didn't want Iran to find out the WMDs did not exist. Saddam used the fake WMD story to hopefully keep Iran from invading Iraq.
If you wish to get the "Cliff Books" version of the interviews, click on the top link to the Washington Post article.
What I see is you connecting dots to support what you want to believe.
What I want to believe doesn't matter. What I know is that Saddam himself gave the interview and explained why he started the 'dis-information" about the WMD.
What I wish is that people whom I had been led to believe were somewhat intelligent and sensible would take the facts as presented and use those rather than some made up jingle.
ps. got rid of a lot of the "quote" descriptions to keep the text from being scrunched up.
I actually just went and read the first link and I'm now more convinced than ever the the Bush admin would have said/done anything to justify invading Iraq, and they trumped up the WMD cover in order to justify it. So thanks for confirming that!
[Edited on 1/21/2016 by gondicar]
The only questions I can ask right now are, Which "first link" are you referring to, and what in that link made you feel this way?
Did Bush Lie?
Is this a rhetorical question?
In other words, you haven't read the transcripts, or the various national news reports.
(edit for spelling)[Edited on 1/18/2016 by Jerry]
I've read a lot if things. And one thing that has been made crystal clear to me from all of that reading is that presidents lie. All of them. And people lie about the lies. All the time. Sometimes it is done in the name of national security, sometimes it is politics. Sometimes it is criminal, and sometimes it is inconsequential. But in any case, the answer to your question is yes.
So, you are willing to concede that in the point of the Iraqi WMD case Bush went with what was believed to be true and didn't, as so many who oppose him say 'Bush lied and people died"? Have you also found the answer as to who actually started that chain of events and why?
(Trying to stay on topic of the WMDs)
Not sure why you think I would or why it even matters so much to you. But if you are trying to make a case for something, just make it already. I've read the "article" at the main link but I'm not about to go thumbing through more than a dozen old news stories searching for whatever smoking gun you think you've found. Tell us exactly what you are driving at or move on.
That said, I'll play along to this extent...let's just pretend for a minute that Bush never said anything he didn't believe was 100% true. That would mean that he was convinced/duped into believing a false pretext for committing this country to an invasion and war...is that some kind of exoneration in your eyes? If he didn't lie his way into invading Iraq, then the alternative is that he presided over a massive foreign policy blunder, perhaps the biggest in the history of our country...thousands of US service men and women killed, tens of thousands of Iraqis killed (many of not most of them non-combatants), an entire country turned upside down, and of course billions and billions of US taxpayer dollars spent first destroying and then trying to rebuild a foreign country while sending our own into a financial black hole. So take your pick, he either lied or f*cked up but either way the disastrous results are the same and we, along with the rest of the world, are still paying the price and will be for years to come.
[Edited on 1/19/2016 by gondicar]
With what you wrote, it sounds like you only read the "header" for the website. The information is in the interviews, and condensed versions are in the news articles. All the information is there, but it seems that you don't want to learn what, and who, caused the chain of events that led up to the WMD decisions.
If you had decided to look further, you would have found the information that Saddam Hussein himself started the dis-information about the WMDs and stopped the inspectors from checking the sites because he didn't want Iran to find out the WMDs did not exist. Saddam used the fake WMD story to hopefully keep Iran from invading Iraq.
If you wish to get the "Cliff Books" version of the interviews, click on the top link to the Washington Post article.
What I see is you connecting dots to support what you want to believe.
What I want to believe doesn't matter. What I know is that Saddam himself gave the interview and explained why he started the 'dis-information" about the WMD.
What I wish is that people whom I had been led to believe were somewhat intelligent and sensible would take the facts as presented and use those rather than some made up jingle.
ps. got rid of a lot of the "quote" descriptions to keep the text from being scrunched up.
I actually just went and read the first link and I'm now more convinced than ever the the Bush admin would have said/done anything to justify invading Iraq, and they trumped up the WMD cover in order to justify it. So thanks for confirming that!
[Edited on 1/21/2016 by gondicar]
The only questions I can ask right now are, Which "first link" are you referring to, and what in that link made you feel this way?
The "top link" Post article that you referenced, and it's no one thing in the article.
I'm done with this topic, feel free to debate yourself if you want but as far as I'm concerned this is all old news and not very interesting at this point.
The so-called NSA Archive is a site from George Washington University, a far-left institution so the opinions contained therein must be viewed through a liberal lens.
The so-called NSA Archive is a site from George Washington University, a far-left institution so the opinions contained therein must be viewed through a liberal lens.
And the far right links you post should be accepted as gospel, right?
Irony at its finest. 😛
The so-called NSA Archive is a site from George Washington University, a far-left institution so the opinions contained therein must be viewed through a liberal lens.
And the far right links you post should be accepted as gospel, right?
Irony at its finest. 😛
______________________________________________________________________
No.
Informed people know the "there were no WMD" line was crap and nothing more than the lefts attempt to attack President Bush.
The families of the 100,000 plus Kurds murdered by Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons as know very well there WMD were in Iraq.
The Syrians know very well that the chemical weapons used by Assad on them came from Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
I didn't post any "far-right" site link. No link is necessary when the proof is right their in the first links opinion piece that conveniently omits the facts.
No link is necessary when the proof is right their in the first links opinion piece that conveniently omits the facts.
I'll let that stand on its own. 😛
Did Bush Lie?
Is this a rhetorical question?
http://www.thenation.com/article/other-lies-george-bush/
In other words, you haven't read the transcripts, or the various national news reports.
(edit for spelling)
[Edited on 1/18/2016 by Jerry]
I've read a lot if things. And one thing that has been made crystal clear to me from all of that reading is that presidents lie. All of them. And people lie about the lies. All the time. Sometimes it is done in the name of national security, sometimes it is politics. Sometimes it is criminal, and sometimes it is inconsequential. But in any case, the answer to your question is yes.
So, you are willing to concede that in the point of the Iraqi WMD case Bush went with what was believed to be true and didn't, as so many who oppose him say 'Bush lied and people died"? Have you also found the answer as to who actually started that chain of events and why?
(Trying to stay on topic of the WMDs)
Not sure why you think I would or why it even matters so much to you. But if you are trying to make a case for something, just make it already. I've read the "article" at the main link but I'm not about to go thumbing through more than a dozen old news stories searching for whatever smoking gun you think you've found. Tell us exactly what you are driving at or move on.
That said, I'll play along to this extent...let's just pretend for a minute that Bush never said anything he didn't believe was 100% true. That would mean that he was convinced/duped into believing a false pretext for committing this country to an invasion and war...is that some kind of exoneration in your eyes? If he didn't lie his way into invading Iraq, then the alternative is that he presided over a massive foreign policy blunder, perhaps the biggest in the history of our country...thousands of US service men and women killed, tens of thousands of Iraqis killed (many of not most of them non-combatants), an entire country turned upside down, and of course billions and billions of US taxpayer dollars spent first destroying and then trying to rebuild a foreign country while sending our own into a financial black hole. So take your pick, he either lied or f*cked up but either way the disastrous results are the same and we, along with the rest of the world, are still paying the price and will be for years to come.
[Edited on 1/19/2016 by gondicar]
With what you wrote, it sounds like you only read the "header" for the website. The information is in the interviews, and condensed versions are in the news articles. All the information is there, but it seems that you don't want to learn what, and who, caused the chain of events that led up to the WMD decisions.
If you had decided to look further, you would have found the information that Saddam Hussein himself started the dis-information about the WMDs and stopped the inspectors from checking the sites because he didn't want Iran to find out the WMDs did not exist. Saddam used the fake WMD story to hopefully keep Iran from invading Iraq.
If you wish to get the "Cliff Books" version of the interviews, click on the top link to the Washington Post article.
What I see is you connecting dots to support what you want to believe.
What I want to believe doesn't matter. What I know is that Saddam himself gave the interview and explained why he started the 'dis-information" about the WMD.
What I wish is that people whom I had been led to believe were somewhat intelligent and sensible would take the facts as presented and use those rather than some made up jingle.
ps. got rid of a lot of the "quote" descriptions to keep the text from being scrunched up.
I actually just went and read the first link and I'm now more convinced than ever the the Bush admin would have said/done anything to justify invading Iraq, and they trumped up the WMD cover in order to justify it. So thanks for confirming that!
[Edited on 1/21/2016 by gondicar]
The only questions I can ask right now are, Which "first link" are you referring to, and what in that link made you feel this way?
The "top link" Post article that you referenced, and it's no one thing in the article.
I'm done with this topic, feel free to debate yourself if you want but as far as I'm concerned this is all old news and not very interesting at this point.
This will only give me two things to consider.
1) That it doesn't matter about the facts, you already had your mind made up for you.
2) That when given the opportunity to learn what actually happened, you chose to not even consider reading
the true facts of the matter.
And yes, this is old news, been reported many times in main stream media, but many people still choose to recite the jingle rather than learn the truth
The so-called NSA Archive is a site from George Washington University, a far-left institution so the opinions contained therein must be viewed through a liberal lens.
Yes, Mule. This is archived NSA material that has been declassified, back in 2009, that shows the WMD story was concocted by Saddam Hussein to make Iran think he had WMDs. To further strengthen the story he kept the inspectors out of Iraq so Iran would not know he was bluffing.
The interviews were conducted by the FBI from January thru March of 2004.
The so-called NSA Archive is a site from George Washington University, a far-left institution so the opinions contained therein must be viewed through a liberal lens.
Yes, Mule. This is archived NSA material that has been declassified, back in 2009, that shows the WMD story was concocted by Saddam Hussein to make Iran think he had WMDs. To further strengthen the story he kept the inspectors out of Iraq so Iran would not know he was bluffing.
The interviews were conducted by the FBI from January thru March of 2004.
___________________________________________________________________________
The archived NSA material that has been declassified is not what the link goes to, it is an opinion piece that pulls selected data from the NSA archive to fit the political agenda of the writer. While the interviews were conducted by the FBI what is written in piece is not a transcript of those interviews but is the opinion of the writer.
The opinion piece also fails to mention 100,000 plus Kurds murdered by Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons.
We also know from Obama’s failed attempt to secure the chemical weapons used on the Syrians that those chemicals matched exactly the signatures of Saddam Hussein’s that were shipped to Syria at the beginning of the Iraq war.
To this day, one of Saddam Hussein’s mobile chemical weapons trucks is stored at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.
Remember the media reports of the U.S. soldiers finding the now degraded Iraq WMD s and their efforts to secure them before ISIS got them? Those media reports stopped fast after the Obama administration denied the Pentagon reports. How convenient.
The no WMD, Bush lied scenario comes from the left and their lapdogs in the media.
If you read what the military and professionals have said you will find vastly different facts.
[Edited on 1/23/2016 by Muleman1994]
The so-called NSA Archive is a site from George Washington University, a far-left institution so the opinions contained therein must be viewed through a liberal lens.
Yes, Mule. This is archived NSA material that has been declassified, back in 2009, that shows the WMD story was concocted by Saddam Hussein to make Iran think he had WMDs. To further strengthen the story he kept the inspectors out of Iraq so Iran would not know he was bluffing.
The interviews were conducted by the FBI from January thru March of 2004.___________________________________________________________________________
The archived NSA material that has been declassified is not what the link goes to, it is an opinion piece that pulls selected data from the NSA archive to fit the political agenda of the writer. While the interviews were conducted by the FBI what is written in piece is not a transcript of those interviews but is the opinion of the writer.
The opinion piece also fails to mention 100,000 plus Kurds murdered by Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons.
We also know from Obama’s failed attempt to secure the chemical weapons used on the Syrians that those chemicals matched exactly the signatures of Saddam Hussein’s that were shipped to Syria at the beginning of the Iraq war.
To this day, one of Saddam Hussein’s mobile chemical weapons trucks is stored at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.
Remember the media reports of the U.S. soldiers finding the now degraded Iraq WMD s and their efforts to secure them before ISIS got them? Those media reports stopped fast after the Obama administration denied the Pentagon reports. How convenient.
The no WMD, Bush lied scenario comes from the left and their lapdogs in the media.
If you read what the military and professionals have said you will find vastly different facts.[Edited on 1/23/2016 by Muleman1994]
The link I posted goes directly to the NSA archives. Are you talking about the link gondicar posted?
The so-called NSA Archive is a site from George Washington University, a far-left institution so the opinions contained therein must be viewed through a liberal lens.
Yes, Mule. This is archived NSA material that has been declassified, back in 2009, that shows the WMD story was concocted by Saddam Hussein to make Iran think he had WMDs. To further strengthen the story he kept the inspectors out of Iraq so Iran would not know he was bluffing.
The interviews were conducted by the FBI from January thru March of 2004.___________________________________________________________________________
The archived NSA material that has been declassified is not what the link goes to, it is an opinion piece that pulls selected data from the NSA archive to fit the political agenda of the writer. While the interviews were conducted by the FBI what is written in piece is not a transcript of those interviews but is the opinion of the writer.
The opinion piece also fails to mention 100,000 plus Kurds murdered by Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons.
We also know from Obama’s failed attempt to secure the chemical weapons used on the Syrians that those chemicals matched exactly the signatures of Saddam Hussein’s that were shipped to Syria at the beginning of the Iraq war.
To this day, one of Saddam Hussein’s mobile chemical weapons trucks is stored at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.
Remember the media reports of the U.S. soldiers finding the now degraded Iraq WMD s and their efforts to secure them before ISIS got them? Those media reports stopped fast after the Obama administration denied the Pentagon reports. How convenient.
The no WMD, Bush lied scenario comes from the left and their lapdogs in the media.
If you read what the military and professionals have said you will find vastly different facts.[Edited on 1/23/2016 by Muleman1994]
The link I posted goes directly to the NSA archives. Are you talking about the link gondicar posted?
_____________________________________________________________________
Your link which does not go to NSA anything. It is named the "National Security Archive" for the purpose of making people think it is legitimate. It is deceptive on purpose as it is a liberal spin site.
I could tell easily after reading the opinion piece that comes up when clicking on your link.
Check it out for yourself:
1.) Go to your link.
2.) click on "Home"
3.) Read.
You got hosed.
[Edited on 1/24/2016 by Muleman1994]
The so-called NSA Archive is a site from George Washington University, a far-left institution so the opinions contained therein must be viewed through a liberal lens.
Yes, Mule. This is archived NSA material that has been declassified, back in 2009, that shows the WMD story was concocted by Saddam Hussein to make Iran think he had WMDs. To further strengthen the story he kept the inspectors out of Iraq so Iran would not know he was bluffing.
The interviews were conducted by the FBI from January thru March of 2004.
___________________________________________________________________________
The archived NSA material that has been declassified is not what the link goes to, it is an opinion piece that pulls selected data from the NSA archive to fit the political agenda of the writer. While the interviews were conducted by the FBI what is written in piece is not a transcript of those interviews but is the opinion of the writer.
The opinion piece also fails to mention 100,000 plus Kurds murdered by Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons.
We also know from Obama’s failed attempt to secure the chemical weapons used on the Syrians that those chemicals matched exactly the signatures of Saddam Hussein’s that were shipped to Syria at the beginning of the Iraq war.
To this day, one of Saddam Hussein’s mobile chemical weapons trucks is stored at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.
Remember the media reports of the U.S. soldiers finding the now degraded Iraq WMD s and their efforts to secure them before ISIS got them? Those media reports stopped fast after the Obama administration denied the Pentagon reports. How convenient.
The no WMD, Bush lied scenario comes from the left and their lapdogs in the media.
If you read what the military and professionals have said you will find vastly different facts.
[Edited on 1/23/2016 by Muleman1994]
The link I posted goes directly to the NSA archives. Are you talking about the link gondicar posted?
_____________________________________________________________________
Your link which does not go to NSA anything. It is named the "National Security Archive" for the purpose of making people think it is legitimate. It is deceptive on purpose as it is a liberal spin site.
I could tell easily after reading the opinion piece that comes up when clicking on your link.
Check it out for yourself:
1.) Go to your link.
2.) click on "Home"
3.) Read.
You got hosed.
[Edited on 1/24/2016 by Muleman1994]
Why do you think that? The link takes you to the National Security Archives where some declassified documents are posted. It's not the National Security Administration, if that's what you were thinking.
The archives are real. The transcripts are from the interviews with Saddam Hussein by the FBI. The interviews are not opinion pieces.
The so-called NSA Archive is a site from George Washington University, a far-left institution so the opinions contained therein must be viewed through a liberal lens.
Yes, Mule. This is archived NSA material that has been declassified, back in 2009, that shows the WMD story was concocted by Saddam Hussein to make Iran think he had WMDs. To further strengthen the story he kept the inspectors out of Iraq so Iran would not know he was bluffing.
The interviews were conducted by the FBI from January thru March of 2004.___________________________________________________________________________
The archived NSA material that has been declassified is not what the link goes to, it is an opinion piece that pulls selected data from the NSA archive to fit the political agenda of the writer. While the interviews were conducted by the FBI what is written in piece is not a transcript of those interviews but is the opinion of the writer.
The opinion piece also fails to mention 100,000 plus Kurds murdered by Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons.
We also know from Obama’s failed attempt to secure the chemical weapons used on the Syrians that those chemicals matched exactly the signatures of Saddam Hussein’s that were shipped to Syria at the beginning of the Iraq war.
To this day, one of Saddam Hussein’s mobile chemical weapons trucks is stored at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.
Remember the media reports of the U.S. soldiers finding the now degraded Iraq WMD s and their efforts to secure them before ISIS got them? Those media reports stopped fast after the Obama administration denied the Pentagon reports. How convenient.
The no WMD, Bush lied scenario comes from the left and their lapdogs in the media.
If you read what the military and professionals have said you will find vastly different facts.[Edited on 1/23/2016 by Muleman1994]
The link I posted goes directly to the NSA archives. Are you talking about the link gondicar posted?
_____________________________________________________________________
Your link which does not go to NSA anything. It is named the "National Security Archive" for the purpose of making people think it is legitimate. It is deceptive on purpose as it is a liberal spin site.
I could tell easily after reading the opinion piece that comes up when clicking on your link.
Check it out for yourself:
1.) Go to your link.
2.) click on "Home"
3.) Read.
You got hosed.
[Edited on 1/24/2016 by Muleman1994]
Why do you think that? The link takes you to the National Security Archives where some declassified documents are posted. It's not the National Security Administration, if that's what you were thinking.
The archives are real. The transcripts are from the interviews with Saddam Hussein by the FBI. The interviews are not opinion pieces.
_______________________________________________________________________
Your link goes to an opinion site of left-wingers. They designed the site to give the illusion that you are going to an actual National Security Archive. The proof is right on the site:
1.) Go to your link.
2.) 2.) click on "Home" then click on “About”
3.) Read.
Or go directly:
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nsa/the_archive.html
Another indicator is in the link: "gwu.edu"
You got hosed.
