The Iraq war was about making benefactors of cheney and bush WEALTHY [and cheney himself] they lied their slimy a$$es off to get support. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/uranium-in-iraq/ nobody seems to remember the original argument to go to war in iraq. I do.
_______________________________________________________________________
So pops quotes factcheck.org, a far-left website whose mission is to attack Republicans and well known for misrepresenting and omitting facts as well as outright lying.
No wonder pops hasn’t a clue.
BTW – President Bush never said the Iraq’s WMD (proven to exist) was the only reason to invade.
Not only proven to exist, but ALREADY USED to kill tens of thousands if not more. Had they been
used again, Bush would have gotten blamed for not doing anything about it.
The Iraq war was about making benefactors of cheney and bush WEALTHY [and cheney himself] they lied their slimy a$$es off to get support. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/uranium-in-iraq/ nobody seems to remember the original argument to go to war in iraq. I do.
_______________________________________________________________________
So pops quotes factcheck.org, a far-left website whose mission is to attack Republicans and well known for misrepresenting and omitting facts as well as outright lying.
No wonder pops hasn’t a clue.
BTW – President Bush never said the Iraq’s WMD (proven to exist) was the only reason to invade.
factcheck.org was set up by money from Walter Annenberg who was a close friend of ronald reagan. so its pretty far from being a "liberal website" or far-left as you claim. if YOU were not a fat, lazy, lying, dumb, stool-sample, and did some research.......you'd know this. 😛
Not to mention that the Senate committee found that many of the administration's pre-war statements about Iraqi WMD were not supported by the underlying intelligence.
In terms of why invade, W made that very clear in his address to the American people:
"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
- President George W. Bush addresses the nation from the Oval Office, March 19, 2003 to announce the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Muleman makes everyone dumber every time he posts.
[Edited on 6/1/2015 by gondicar]
The whole subject is political to the Bush opponents and it's not about politics.
For clarity, take politics out of the equation.
You can't. The equation was built on politics.
The Iraq war was about making benefactors of cheney and bush WEALTHY [and cheney himself] they lied their slimy a$$es off to get support. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/uranium-in-iraq/ nobody seems to remember the original argument to go to war in iraq. I do.
_______________________________________________________________________
So pops quotes factcheck.org, a far-left website whose mission is to attack Republicans and well known for misrepresenting and omitting facts as well as outright lying.
No wonder pops hasn’t a clue.
BTW – President Bush never said the Iraq’s WMD (proven to exist) was the only reason to invade.
factcheck.org was set up by money from Walter Annenberg who was a close friend of ronald reagan. so its pretty far from being a "liberal website" or far-left as you claim. if YOU were not a fat, lazy, lying, dumb, stool-sample, and did some research.......you'd know this. 😛
Not to mention that the Senate committee found that many of the administration's pre-war statements about Iraqi WMD were not supported by the underlying intelligence.
In terms of why invade, W made that very clear in his address to the American people:
"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
- President George W. Bush addresses the nation from the Oval Office, March 19, 2003 to announce the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.Muleman makes everyone dumber every time he posts.
[Edited on 6/1/2015 by gondicar]
____________________________________________________________________
Your quoting only one line from one President Bush speech only shows your manipulation of the facts to support your cowardly stance.
WMD was only one of a number of reasons clearly stated to The American People.
For even more enlightenment, read Hillary and Kerrys speeches supporting the war and Congressional approval by a huge bi-partisan vote.
The Iraq war was about making benefactors of cheney and bush WEALTHY [and cheney himself] they lied their slimy a$$es off to get support. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/uranium-in-iraq/ nobody seems to remember the original argument to go to war in iraq. I do.
_______________________________________________________________________
So pops quotes factcheck.org, a far-left website whose mission is to attack Republicans and well known for misrepresenting and omitting facts as well as outright lying.
No wonder pops hasn’t a clue.
BTW – President Bush never said the Iraq’s WMD (proven to exist) was the only reason to invade.
Not only proven to exist, but ALREADY USED to kill tens of thousands if not more. Had they been
used again, Bush would have gotten blamed for not doing anything about it.
We invaded Iraq based on the premise that Saddam had a working WMD program in progress that was a threat to the U.S. interests and his neighbors which turned out to be false. The WMD found in Iraq were old and were found to be a bad state of repair. It was reported they were more of threat to anyone who came in contact with them and were not a viable offensive weapon any longer.
You can quote as many articles as you like that speculate what is left there but you continue to ignore the fact that no active development program was found to exist at the time of invasion and there were no large caches of viable offensive WMD found during the invasion.
If they had been found I think the Bush Administration would have been bragging about the fact that they were right instead of having to defend the fact that their reason for invading Iraq was a sham.
Alloak you used to be a conservative that liberals could have an intelligent discussion with. Now you refuse to acknowledge it when we make a valid point and continue to repeat the same failed argument over an over. I expect that from Mule, which is why I don't bother responding to his ranting's, but what the hell happened to you man?
Senate Roll Call: Iraq Resolution
Friday, October 11, 2002
Following is an alphabetical listing by state of how each senator voted on President Bush's Iraq resolution. A "yes" vote was a vote to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq unilaterally. A "no" vote was a vote to defeat the measure. Voting "yes" were 29 Democrats and 48 Republicans. Voting "no" were 1 Republican, 21 Democrats, and 1 Independent.
Alabama Jeff Sessions (R): Yes Richard Shelby (R): Yes
Alaska Frank Murkowski (R): Yes Ted Stevens (R): Yes
Arizona Jon Kyl (R): Yes John McCain (R): Yes
Arkansas Tim Hutchinson (R): Yes Blanche Lincoln (D): Yes
California Barbara Boxer (D): No Dianne Feinstein (D): Yes
Colorado Wayne Allard (R): Yes Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R): Yes
Connecticut Christopher Dodd (D): Yes Joseph Lieberman (D): Yes
Delaware Joseph Biden (D): Yes Thomas Carper (D): Yes
Florida Bob Graham (D): No Bill Nelson (D): Yes
Georgia Max Cleland (D): Yes Zell Miller (D): Yes
Hawaii Daniel Akaka (D): No Daniel Inouye (D): No
Idaho Larry Craig (R): Yes Mike Crapo (R): Yes
Illinois Richard Durbin (D): No Peter Fitzgerald (R): Yes
Indiana Evan Bayh (D): Yes Richard Lugar (R): Yes
Iowa Charles Grassley (R): Yes Tom Harkin (D): Yes
Kansas Sam Brownback (R): Yes Pat Roberts (R): Yes
Kentucky Jim Bunning (R): Yes Mitch McConnell (R): Yes
Louisiana John Breaux (D): Yes Mary Landrieu (D): Yes
Maine Susan Collins (R): Yes Olympia Snowe (R): Yes
Maryland Barbara Mikulski (D): No Paul Sarbanes (D): No
Massachusetts Edward Kennedy (D): No John Kerry (D): Yes
Michigan Debbie Stabenow (D): No Carl Levin (D): No
Minnesota Mark Dayton (D): No Paul Wellstone (D): No
Mississippi Thad Cochran (R): Yes Trent Lott (R): Yes
Missouri Jean Carnahan (D): Yes Christopher (Kit) Bond (R): Yes
Montana Max Baucus (D): Yes Conrad Burns (R): Yes
Nebraska Chuck Hagel (R): Yes Ben Nelson (D): Yes
Nevada John Ensign (R): Yes Harry Reid (D): Yes
New Hampshire Judd Gregg (R): Yes Bob Smith (R): Yes
New Jersey Jon Corzine (D): No Robert Torricelli (D): Yes
New Mexico Jeff Bingaman (D): No Pete Domenici (R): Yes
New York Hillary Clinton (D): Yes Charles Schumer (D): Yes
North Carolina John Edwards (D): Yes Jesse Helms (R): Yes
North Dakota Kent Conrad (D): No Byron Dorgan (D): Yes
Ohio Mike DeWine (R): Yes George Voinovich (R): Yes
Oklahoma James Inhofe (R): Yes Don Nickles (R): Yes
Oregon Gordon Smith (R): Yes Ron Wyden (D): No
Pennsylvania Rick Santorum (R): Yes Arlen Specter (R): Yes
Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee (R): No Jack Reed (D): No
South Carolina Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D): Yes Strom Thurmond (R): Yes
South Dakota Thomas Daschle (D): Yes Tim Johnson (D): Yes
Tennessee Bill Frist (R): Yes Fred Thompson (R): Yes
Texas Phil Gramm (R): Yes Kay Bailey Hutchison (R): Yes
Utah Robert Bennett (R): Yes Orrin Hatch (R): Yes
Vermont James Jeffords (I): No Patrick Leahy (D): No
Virginia George Allen (R): Yes John Warner (R): Yes
Washington Maria Cantwell (D): Yes Patty Murray (D): No
West Virginia Robert Byrd (D): No Jay Rockefeller (D): Yes
Wisconsin Russell Feingold (D): No Herb Kohl (D): Yes
Wyoming Mike Enzi (R): Yes Craig Thomas (R): Yes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm
The Iraq war was about making benefactors of cheney and bush WEALTHY [and cheney himself] they lied their slimy a$$es off to get support. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/uranium-in-iraq/ nobody seems to remember the original argument to go to war in iraq. I do.
_______________________________________________________________________
So pops quotes factcheck.org, a far-left website whose mission is to attack Republicans and well known for misrepresenting and omitting facts as well as outright lying.
No wonder pops hasn’t a clue.
BTW – President Bush never said the Iraq’s WMD (proven to exist) was the only reason to invade.
factcheck.org was set up by money from Walter Annenberg who was a close friend of ronald reagan. so its pretty far from being a "liberal website" or far-left as you claim. if YOU were not a fat, lazy, lying, dumb, stool-sample, and did some research.......you'd know this. 😛
Not to mention that the Senate committee found that many of the administration's pre-war statements about Iraqi WMD were not supported by the underlying intelligence.
In terms of why invade, W made that very clear in his address to the American people:
"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
- President George W. Bush addresses the nation from the Oval Office, March 19, 2003 to announce the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.Muleman makes everyone dumber every time he posts.
[Edited on 6/1/2015 by gondicar]
____________________________________________________________________
Your quoting only one line from one President Bush speech only shows your manipulation of the facts to support your cowardly stance.
WMD was only one of a number of reasons clearly stated to The American People.
For even more enlightenment, read Hillary and Kerrys speeches supporting the war and Congressional approval by a huge bi-partisan vote.
As hard as you try, you can't change history. WMD was the primary reason, and it was the drumbeat of WMD the Bush admin used to beat everyone over the head with until they had just about every American frothing at the mouth over it. That one line is the perfect summary of the case that Bush made to invade. The bi-partisan vote just means that just about everyone in Congress was duped, or otherwise persuaded, into supporting it. Even Jeb has admitted that with hindsight he would not have made the decision to invade that his brother did, and I guarantee many if not most who voted for it would say the same no matter their party affiliation.
Why are even discussing this piece of ancient history? Oh yeah, thanks alloak.
[Edited on 6/1/2015 by gondicar]
The Iraq war was about making benefactors of cheney and bush WEALTHY [and cheney himself] they lied their slimy a$$es off to get support. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/uranium-in-iraq/ nobody seems to remember the original argument to go to war in iraq. I do.
_______________________________________________________________________
So pops quotes factcheck.org, a far-left website whose mission is to attack Republicans and well known for misrepresenting and omitting facts as well as outright lying.
No wonder pops hasn’t a clue.
BTW – President Bush never said the Iraq’s WMD (proven to exist) was the only reason to invade.
factcheck.org was set up by money from Walter Annenberg who was a close friend of ronald reagan. so its pretty far from being a "liberal website" or far-left as you claim. if YOU were not a fat, lazy, lying, dumb, stool-sample, and did some research.......you'd know this. 😛
Not to mention that the Senate committee found that many of the administration's pre-war statements about Iraqi WMD were not supported by the underlying intelligence.
In terms of why invade, W made that very clear in his address to the American people:
"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
- President George W. Bush addresses the nation from the Oval Office, March 19, 2003 to announce the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.Muleman makes everyone dumber every time he posts.
[Edited on 6/1/2015 by gondicar]
____________________________________________________________________
Your quoting only one line from one President Bush speech only shows your manipulation of the facts to support your cowardly stance.
WMD was only one of a number of reasons clearly stated to The American People.
For even more enlightenment, read Hillary and Kerrys speeches supporting the war and Congressional approval by a huge bi-partisan vote.
Re: your response to gondicar. From what I can gather, he's one of the more intelligent & factually accurate posters on this site. Your calling him a coward is about all you have. This is the way you resort to & always fail to rebut someone who takes a stance contrary to your far right and usually inaccurate rants. Why do you believe the posters on this site refer to you as a troll?
Re: your statement "WMD was only one of a number of reasons clearly stated to The American People."
Response - Bush had a flavor of the week (constantly evolving & changing to justify) why we invaded and continued to stay in Iraq. The lives lost and the $$$$$$ spent will never be seen as a victory nor justifiable.
Your quoting only one line from one President Bush speech only shows your manipulation of the facts to support your cowardly stance.
Below is the entire text of President Bush's address to the nation from the Oval Office on Wednesday evening, March 19, 2003. What part of his speech or intent did I manipulate by pulling that one line? I'll tell you what: nothing. His speech was perfectly clear as to why invade and that one line formed the entire crux of he said that night. You are the master manipulator here, or at least you try to be, even following the old conservative tactic of calling me a coward...oooooo, that one really got me....NOT.
President Bush Addresses the Nation
The Oval OfficeSTART 10:16 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.
To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. That trust is well placed.
The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military. In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military -- a final atrocity against his people.
I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.
We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.
Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.
Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.
My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.
May God bless our country and all who defend her.
END 10:20 P.M. EST
[Edited on 6/1/2015 by gondicar]
The above speech was not the speech that covered all the reasons to go to war in Iraq and conveniently omits the other justifications such as terrorism and Al Qaeda.
WMD was not the only reason President Bush and America had to invade Iraq. That of course is contrary to the standard liberal’s lie.
A transcript of George Bush's war ultimatum speech from the Cross Hall in the White House
Monday 17 March 2003 21.22 EST Last modified on Wednesday 1 October 2014 04.19 EDT
________________________________________
My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.
The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.
The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.
The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.
The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.
Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the UN was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.
In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 - both still in effect - the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.
Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.
Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.
In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals - including journalists and inspectors - should leave Iraq immediately.
Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.
It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.
And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."
Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.
Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.
Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland. In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services. Among other measures, I have directed additional security of our airports, and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America.
Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people - yet we're not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers. If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them, will face fearful consequences.
We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.
The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.
Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations - and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.
As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.
The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.
That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.
Good night, and may God continue to bless America.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/18/usa.iraq
Why are even discussing this piece of ancient history? Oh yeah, thanks alloak.
[Edited on 6/1/2015 by gondicar]
Thanks alloak? The media brought the whole thing back into light with the questioning Jeb Bush and other GOP candidates about the invasion. The US News piece is from May 26.
Thanks alloak?
Why are even discussing this piece of ancient history? Oh yeah, thanks alloak.
[Edited on 6/1/2015 by gondicar]Thanks alloak? The media brought the whole thing back into light with the questioning Jeb Bush and other GOP candidates about the invasion. The US News piece is from May 26.
Thanks alloak?
The premise of your OP is that there were WMD's in Iraq. The fact is that the link you posted says "His latest bit of journalism isn't likely to win him any more friends on the left, as he's just knocked down a revered piece of conventional wisdom that will force a reassessment of George W. Bush's presidency. For according to Woodward, there's no evidence the 43rd president of the United States "lied" the nation into war."
But no evidence for that is given. We are just supposed to take Woodward's word for it because "The Washington Post's Bob Woodward is often the authoritative last word. He's turned up a lot of "scoops" going back to the administration of President Richard M. Nixon who he, along with then-writing partner Carl Bernstein, did more to drive from office in disgrace than just about anyone.
Really?
BTW, if you opposed the war to begin with and you oppose it now, why are you trying to prove that Bush was justified in the invasion?
Why are even discussing this piece of ancient history? Oh yeah, thanks alloak.
[Edited on 6/1/2015 by gondicar]Thanks alloak? The media brought the whole thing back into light with the questioning Jeb Bush and other GOP candidates about the invasion. The US News piece is from May 26.
Thanks alloak?
The premise of your OP is that there were WMD's in Iraq. The fact is that the link you posted says "His latest bit of journalism isn't likely to win him any more friends on the left, as he's just knocked down a revered piece of conventional wisdom that will force a reassessment of George W. Bush's presidency. For according to Woodward, there's no evidence the 43rd president of the United States "lied" the nation into war."
But no evidence for that is given. We are just supposed to take Woodward's word for it because "The Washington Post's Bob Woodward is often the authoritative last word. He's turned up a lot of "scoops" going back to the administration of President Richard M. Nixon who he, along with then-writing partner Carl Bernstein, did more to drive from office in disgrace than just about anyone.
Really?
BTW, if you opposed the war to begin with and you oppose it now, why are you trying to prove that Bush was justified in the invasion?
I still don't believe the war was justified. However, Bush clearly didn't lie about WMD's and myths should be debunked if possible.
Why are even discussing this piece of ancient history? Oh yeah, thanks alloak.
[Edited on 6/1/2015 by gondicar]Thanks alloak? The media brought the whole thing back into light with the questioning Jeb Bush and other GOP candidates about the invasion. The US News piece is from May 26.
Thanks alloak?
The premise of your OP is that there were WMD's in Iraq. The fact is that the link you posted says "His latest bit of journalism isn't likely to win him any more friends on the left, as he's just knocked down a revered piece of conventional wisdom that will force a reassessment of George W. Bush's presidency. For according to Woodward, there's no evidence the 43rd president of the United States "lied" the nation into war."
But no evidence for that is given. We are just supposed to take Woodward's word for it because "The Washington Post's Bob Woodward is often the authoritative last word. He's turned up a lot of "scoops" going back to the administration of President Richard M. Nixon who he, along with then-writing partner Carl Bernstein, did more to drive from office in disgrace than just about anyone.
Really?
BTW, if you opposed the war to begin with and you oppose it now, why are you trying to prove that Bush was justified in the invasion?
I still don't believe the war was justified. However, Bush clearly didn't lie about WMD's and myths should be debunked if possible.
He clearly did lie. Your link provides no proof that he didn't.
Alloak, no viable WMD or capability to produce them was found in Iraq after the invasion and this was the excuse the Bush administration used to justify invading Iraq. The WMD excuse was a fraud. How do you justify that?
Has anybody provided any proof whatsoever that Bush knew with certainty what they had or didn't have? To prove that Bush lied one would have to prove that he knew WITH CERTAINTY there were no WMD. Hell, nobody did and most thought the exact opposite, every intelligence agency in the western world.
Lets see the proof. Put up or shut up. Otherwise, it's just a baseless accusation and a pretty serious one. Again, this is all about politics and merely a hammer the Left has used against a President they don't like.
Has anybody provided any proof whatsoever that Bush knew with certainty what they had or didn't have? To prove that Bush lied one would have to prove that he knew WITH CERTAINTY there were no WMD. Hell, nobody did and most thought the exact opposite, every intelligence agency in the western world.
Lets see the proof. Put up or shut up. Otherwise, it's just a baseless accusation and a pretty serious one. Again, this is all about politics and merely a hammer the Left has used against a President they don't like.
Really? Put up or shut up? You are the guy who started this thread claiming that Bush didn't lie. The onus is on you to "put up or shut up". Your link is a joke. it offers nothing but claim without any supporting evidence.
Alloak, no viable WMD or capability to produce them was found in Iraq after the invasion and this was the excuse the Bush administration used to justify invading Iraq. The WMD excuse was a fraud. How do you justify that?
Key phrase "after the invasion." So then Bush knew going in with certainty that "no" WMD would be found but decided to invade anyway? Prove it.
1. Bush believed that Iraq was in possession of a stockpile of WMD.
2. "none" were subsequently found
3. Bush lied. He didn't really believe what he believed.
Alloak, no viable WMD or capability to produce them was found in Iraq after the invasion and this was the excuse the Bush administration used to justify invading Iraq. The WMD excuse was a fraud. How do you justify that?
Key phrase "after the invasion." So then Bush knew going in with certainty that "no" WMD would be found but decided to invade anyway? Prove it.
1. Bush believed that Iraq was in possession of a stockpile of WMD.
2. "none" were subsequently found
3. Bush lied. He didn't really believe what he believed.
Your opinion. Prove it. The UN inspectors said there were no WMD's. Bush said they had WMD's. He said it with a great amount of certainty. They were not there. Bush lied.
Now, once again, you made the claim without providing a shred of proof. Prove your point, muleboy.... I mean alloak.. 😛
The UN inspectors said there were no WMD's.
The inspectors said this during the run-up to the war? Then why were so many supposedly "duped" by Bush, Cheney and the intelligence agencies if they already knew "nothing" would be found? The House and Senate knew there were no WMD's and voted to invade anyway? Wow, the "duped" story pretty much goes out the window then along with "Bush lied."
[Edited on 6/2/2015 by alloak41]
To prove that Bush lied one would have to prove that he knew WITH CERTAINTY prior to the invasion there were no WMD.
Anybody found anything yet? Step up and prove Bush lied.
[Edited on 6/2/2015 by alloak41]
To prove that Bush lied one would have to prove that he knew WITH CERTAINTY prior to the invasion there were no WMD.
Anybody found anything yet? Step up and prove Bush lied.
[Edited on 6/2/2015 by alloak41]
We really need to cut you some slack on this. Afterall, Bush was only stating what President Cheney told him to say, and it was Karl Rove who did Bush's thinking for him. So...technically...Bush is really off the hook.
To prove that Bush lied one would have to prove that he knew WITH CERTAINTY prior to the invasion there were no WMD.
Anybody found anything yet? Step up and prove Bush lied.
[Edited on 6/2/2015 by alloak41]
It is not black and white as you would like to portray it Alloak. Did Bush lie or cherry pick intelligence to suit his agenda of invading Iraq?
There is no real evidence of the former AFAIK but there sure is evidence of the latter.
Here is what I posted on page 2 of this thread
Hard to tell if Bush actually lied or was so anxious to attack Iraq that he was desperate for an excuse.
Even Richard Clarke, Bush's terrorism Czar, admitted that Bush never ordered him to manufacture evidence. But he also claims that the other high level advisors to Bush were fixated on attacking Iraq and that the reports from the Intelligence Agencies, CIA and FBI, which showed there was no connection between 911, Al Qaeda and Iraq may never had made it to Bush and were suppressed by his advisors.
Maybe Bush did not lie per say but it sounds like he was determined to attack Iraq and was desperate for a reason and was willing to accept any connection no matter how weak.
If you can prove the Bush Team KNEW there were no WMD at the OUTSET of the invasion, then and only then have you proven that Bush lied. Until then, we can theorize till the end of time....
If you can prove the Bush Team KNEW there were no WMD at the OUTSET of the invasion, then and only then have you proven that Bush lied. Until then, we can theorize till the end of time....
Bush may not have known for sure but based on insiders it seems his advisors knew and chose to suppress this information. Of course unless you think Richard Clarke is a liar.
[Edited on 6/2/2015 by Bill_Graham]
If you can prove the Bush Team KNEW there were no WMD at the OUTSET of the invasion, then and only then have you proven that Bush lied. Until then, we can theorize till the end of time....
OK, for a minute let us assume that Bush wasn't sure. He invaded a sovereign nation based on info he wasn't sure about.
If his advisers lied to him, why were none of the fired and prosecuted? Why didn't Bush admit he was lied to? He just stayed the course. Either way, he started an illegal war.
Judging history from the comfy armchair of today is fun isn't it !
Let's do Vietnam next !
If President Bush lied or not, or to what extent or not, it doesn't matter. No one is getting prosecuted for anything, no one is going to jail, nothing will bring anyone back from the dead.
Just another war in the scrapheap of wars throughout human history where politicians sent citizens off to die.
If you can prove the Bush Team KNEW there were no WMD at the OUTSET of the invasion, then and only then have you proven that Bush lied. Until then, we can theorize till the end of time....
OK, for a minute let us assume that Bush wasn't sure. He invaded a sovereign nation based on info he wasn't sure about.
If his advisers lied to him, why were none of the fired and prosecuted? Why didn't Bush admit he was lied to? He just stayed the course. Either way, he started an illegal war.
1. Even if he was sure the invasion was far too expensive and a poor decision IMO. We're in agreement here.
2. Goes back to the original premise. You would have to be able to prove that his advisors knew there were no WMD's during the run-up to prove they were liars. If that was ever proven they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. When you make bold accusations you better have proof, but lack of proof has done little or nothing to stop "Bush Lied" from becoming a bumper sticker.
If you can prove the Bush Team KNEW there were no WMD at the OUTSET of the invasion, then and only then have you proven that Bush lied. Until then, we can theorize till the end of time....
OK, for a minute let us assume that Bush wasn't sure. He invaded a sovereign nation based on info he wasn't sure about.
If his advisers lied to him, why were none of the fired and prosecuted? Why didn't Bush admit he was lied to? He just stayed the course. Either way, he started an illegal war.
Military operations in Iraq were a matter of policy. The neoconservatives in the Bush Administration were intent on starting a course of action they had planned on for twenty years.
How it actually got started didn't matter and still doesn't matter.
