This is paraphrased, of course: "We have clear proof that Saddam has and is building weapons of mass destruction."
Sorry, but Bush said it and it was a lie. I don't care how many other reasons you people have to throw at me and call me some crazy leftist focusing on one miniscule fact to blow something someone said way out of proportion. The Bush administration said it multiple times and used it as their primary reason to go to war in Iraq. And it was a lie. The end.
I see a diminutive man dressed in brightly colored silk clothes. He sits in a polished saddle and furiously whacking his mount with a riding crop. Snap, Snap, Snap but he isn't going anywhere because the horse is DEAD!
Yeah, I should have put "We're in Iraq to avenge 9/11" because that's a total crock too. Too bad I forgot it.
As for the bit about Weapons of Mass Destruction: yeah, and only the German, French, Canadian, American, Spanish, and every other government in the region thought he had them. So did everyone in the Clinton administration, and the United Nations. So that makes it a "lie" by Bush, right?
Yeah, I should have added that to the list too. Too bad I can't find a convenient way to squinch it all in there: "BushLiedbecauseeventhough everyoneintheUNandEuropeangovernmentsandeveryoneelseagreedthathehadWMDsit'shisfaultanywaybecausehisnameisBush."
Yes, ESP, I'd think it's a dead horse too, if it weren't for all the people who claim they "support the war" and then keep bringing up spurious bullshit about how "Bush lied" or that we went to war for revenge for 9/11 or because we're bullies or imperialists or want oil. You'd think these stupid, ill-informed arguments would be gone by now, wouldn't you? But they just. won't. die.
if it weren't for all the people who claim they "support the war" and then keep bringing up spurious bullshit about how "Bush lied" or that we went to war for revenge for 9/11
Uh, no, Dean you're confused. It was POTUS who said we went to war in revenge for 9/11.
President Bush said it. It was President Bush. Revenge. 9/11. Iraq. President Bush.
You asked for the biggest lie. That was it. And President Bush said it. Repeatedly. In fact he just said it again today:
Bush decried Monday's bombing near the International Committee of the Red Cross headquarters in Baghdad, saying "it's the same mentality that attacked us on September 11, 2001."
That's a lie? What planet do you live on? One can in fact make a strong case that we went to war in revenge for 9/11. The opposing force was the combination of al Qaeda and the Taliban; the location was Afghanistan. Of course, one can also make the strong counter-argument that there were several other reasons based around justice, repetition prevention, etc., not just the motivation of revenge.
I'm surprised you included that quote, given that it completely undermines your own argument. Bush is drawing a parallel as to motivation, also known as using an ANALOGY, which happened to be both reasonable and justified. Nowhere in the statement you presented is there 1) any mention of revenge, or 2) any lie whatsoever. Would you care to try again?
Please provide any facts that establish the proposition that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq.
Note that:
-editorials don't count.
-dislike of, or severe approval of the current administration doesn't count.
-rants about Bush's many faults don't count.
-self-referential or arguments by conclusion (e.g. "he lied because he lied!") don't count.
That "one miniscule fact" that you focus on must be really small. I've never seen it over here. :)
You, of course, cannot be referring to the claim that Bush lied, as that is a conclusion, not a fact. Unless you have some irrefutable proof of that, of course.
The problem is that we only have two facts:
1)the Bush adminstration spoke as if they believed that Hussein had WMDs in hand.
2)we haven't found much yet. Hints and such, but not much else.
Now, I'd just love to hear your reasoning how this results in the conclusion that Bush lied. To make this claim without any other facts is, well, not logical, literally. How can you claim that you know Bush lied, as that implies you have some sort of private avenue into his head?
Are you aware of how difficult it is to develop an accurate intel assessment with even the best data?
Please note that I'm not even trying to address your statement WMDs were the primary motivation for the war. Nor am I calling you a crazy liberal.
What I am saying is that you have literally no logical basis for your claim. No facts -to my knowledge- have ever been advanced to support that claim. Neither you nor anyone else has provided any evidence at all.
Please provide any proof that Bush knew that Hussein truly did not have WMDs.
I fear that this appeal to logic will not deter you, as you've already said that you "don't care how many other reasons you people have to throw at me."
Ara: gee, I'm sorry, in the quote you cite to support your claim, I missed the part where Bush said anything like "this latest bombing shows that we invaded Iraq as payback for 9/11." Nope. Didn't see that part.
Did you quote all of the pertinent graf? :)
Hell, even if he said it was the same people that did 9/11 (which he didn't) that quote has no bearing on the Bush administration's motivations.
ESP: cute. Asinine, and addresses no real points. But cute...
Casey: http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1368124,00.html
I can also show you about 2,340 more pages that referenced this: http://www.google.ca/search?q=US+Secretary+of+State+Colin+Powell+was+under+persistent+pressure+from+the+Pentagon+and+White+House+to+include+questionable+intelligence+in+his+report+on+Iraq%27s+weapons+of+mass+destruction+he+delivered+at+the+United+Nations+last+February%2C+a+US+weekly+report&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
I originally got it off Yahoo News but they have sinced taken down their page (they only keep pages for 30 days, it seems).
Sorry, but it seems to be the biggest lie from the war, which is what Dean was asking about.
And here is documentation that bush claimed they had evidence:
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text2003/0208bush.htm
Here are some quotes from the page in question:
"The Iraqi regime's violations of Security Council Resolutions are evident, they are dangerous to America and the world, and they continue to this hour"
"The Iraqi regime has actively and secretly attempted to obtain equipment needed to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Firsthand witnesses have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents — equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery."
"Saddam Hussein was required to make a full declaration of his weapons programs. He has not done so. Saddam Hussein was required to fully cooperate in the disarmament of his regime. He has not done so. Saddam Hussein was given a final chance. He is throwing away that chance."
"To the contrary, the regime is pursuing an elaborate campaign to conceal its weapons materials and to hide or intimidate key experts and scientists."
All said by mr. Bush himself in a radio address or something or other.
Oh, and remember that speech Bush made 48 hours before the war?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
" 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."
Strange how later the CIA said "there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons." (referenced in my post above). Whew. Okay, I'm done.
Lots of quotes, and yet, strangely, not a lie among them. How very curious. Not a single one of those claims has EVEN been established to be false (which by itself would not prove a lie), and several of those points have been conclusively demonstrated to be true by the interim Kay report. Try again.
I love posts like this. They make me giggle like a little girl! I can't tell if Dean and his crew of CNN-baked brownies are for real, or actually progressives poking fun at conservatives!
This can go on and on how Bush lied. Bush was patient. Saddam had been working with scientist involving chemicals that could kill millions, he killed thousands of his own people. Take 9-11 out and just look at what that madman was up to and how very close he was to destroying us. Do you really think playing this pety game of Bush LIED is what is important?
I think terror is what we should be concentrating on. I believe Bush took all the steps he shoud before he went to war. He went to congress, He went to the United Nations.
Don't listen to rumors. Listen to different media. Try reading different newspapers than you are always relying on. Try differnt channels. Read blogs from the soldiers in Iraq. I bet you will stop this pety Bush lied crap.
We need to take a good look at the democrats that are running and try to figure out what plan they have. We need to back up our troops that Bush sent over there.
The BUSH LIED!!!! bit is just too important for the so-called "anti-war" people to let go...if BUSH DIDN'T LIE!!!! then they have to support the action (or look extremely petty)...if Bush lied, then its ok to be opposed, ergo Bush lied. Never underestimate the pull of circular reasoning.
Ara: not a single thing you quoted by the President indicates that we went to war in revenge for 9/11. Yeesh. You've got a very creative way of spinning, that's for sure though.
Dowingba: What others said. You're declaring someone who could be wrong to be a liar. That's dishonest.
Although, in point of fact, at least a couple of the mobile labs were found, we have found biotoxins in sufficient quantity to kill thousands and that could easily be turned into quantities to kill millions. We haven't found as much as we thought--so far anyway.
" 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."
That is not just Bush being wrong. He's not saying "there might be some of the most lethal weapons ever devised there", he's saying "Intelligence...leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Which is a lie.
And Janelle: Do you really think playing this pety game of Bush LIED is what is important?
This is what I was talking about in my original comment on this thread. I'm merely stating that there was a lie, not whether or not the USA should have gone to war. But in all fairness, the righties were pushing for Clinton's impeachment based on the fact that he lied about having sex with an intern, for heaven's sakes. This is just a little bit more serious than that. Just a tad.
dowingba...
The statement you quote:
"Intelligence...leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
It might be inaccurate. I don't think we can say for sure, yet. At least I certainly can't. But, for the sake of argument, even if we say the statement is inaccurate, that doesn't mean it was a lie. There's a difference.
Dictionary.com provides these two definitions of lie:
1) A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2) Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
In order for that statement to be a lie, you must argue that Bush knew that all the intelligence that he had, that the British had, that the UN had, and that the world had was wrong, and, further, Bush knew it was wrong, yet presented it to the American people simply to justify war.
That is not just Bush being wrong. He's not saying "there might be some of the most lethal weapons ever devised there", he's saying "Intelligence...leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Which is a lie.
Well, in a way, it is all our fault - and President Bush carries primary responsibility for this.
While its technically un-necessary for us to fully mobilize the United States because this would result in a gigantic amount of military redundancy, what we have seen is that the failure to institute full mobilization (ala WWII) has been to allow some people to pretend that this war is something other than a vital matter of life and death for us.
On 9/12, Bush should have just gone to Congress and requested declarations of war against the Axis of Evil nations (plus a few others thrown in for good measure) and then set about building up a 25 million man conscript military force (no exemptions!!!). This would have forged unity among our enemies, thus temporarily making our task a bit harder but with everyone having some close friend or family member in uniform it would have prevented anyone from even pretending there was logic or morality upon the so-called "anti-war" side.
Ah, well, thats all 20/20 hindsight - now, as you point out, the real battlefield of the War on Terrorism is here at home; can we of the pro-victory side keep faith long enough to prevent the machinations of the pro-defeat side from bearing fruit? I think we can and will. It'll be nettlesome, but in the long run I think that the broad mass of the people understand 9/11.
"Intelligence leaves no doubt": did he believe this? Did he have reason to believe it? Did Clinton have reason to believe it when he said the same exact sorts of things? Or Madelaine Albright? Or half the Democrats in the Congress? Was Hans Blix a liar? Tony Blair? All of them, all just big stinking liars because, after all, they said they were certain?
If you say, "There is no doubt that my wife loves me," and she divorces you, does that mean you're a liar?
If Bush was simply telling the truth as he saw it and was simply wrong, wouldn't that make you a liar for your own false accusation? Come off it man! You're just plain not being fair.
I would say the latter, but not moreso than any other person who was equally well informed and came to the exact same conclusion as he did. This was Not. At. All. a point of contention in any of the intervening years between GWI and GWII. It is not as if Bush convinced us, the unbelieving masses, that Saddam had WMDs. It is also not true that he believed Saddam to be innocent, and was fooled by someone else into thinking this was not the case.
Why do so many have this belief that Bush, *alone* should be required to be omniscient? Why do they hold *one man alone* (and perhaps his advisors) to a standard, that by their measure, almost every other informed human being on this planet supposedly failed? Why?
Is it merely that it is politically expedient? That is blind partisanship, and intellectual dishonesty. Saying anything, and taking any position to replace the person in power because you do not percieve him as On Our Side, may help the Party, but it hurts the Country.
It's a lie because he said there's no doubt and there's certainly plenty of doubt. Unless he, being the most powerful man in the world with access to the most, the best, intelligence known to man, does have proof without a doubt that there's these weapons and deliberately isn't showing anyone (even the CIA). In which case he's lying, also.
Comparing Bush to a starstruck lover is just plain not fair. The fact is, if there were really some of the worst weapons ever known to man in Iraq, Bush would know, wouldn't he? He shouldn't be making guesses here. This isn't like trying to guess what someone's thinking (a la your starstruck lover analogy). For 12 years they have been watching every inch of Iraq 24 hours a day. The UN has had weapons inspectors in and out of there plenty of times. The US has even had their own spies running about there on the ground. For 12 years. And I'm sorry, if after all that, he can't provide a shred of concrete evidence...he sure doesn't have much reason to believe himself.
There is still very strong evidence that Saddam did in fact "continue to posses and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised". Of course you can get into all kinds of semantic arguments as to what that phrase really should mean, and thus far we certainly have not found an arsenal of such weapons. We have uncovered reference strains for some biological agents as well as evidence that other similar caches exist.
There is also evidence that while Iraq had lost much, if not all, of it's CW production capability it had facilities that could be easily converted for such a use and likely had plans to do so.
All evidence does indicate that Iraq had no real nuclear weapon capability(whew!), but that attempts were being made to develop at least the technology.
And finally Iraq was working to develop siginificant improvements to their delivery system capability increasing range and effectiveness of missles.
A detailed summary of the us findings can be found here http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html
So, to even claim that President Bush was wrong is premature. As to the claim that he was lying, you seem to hang it all on saying "intelligence leaves no doubt". Yet that was not a lie. You may argue that it was wrong, but can you point to anyone that had access to high level intelligence that really doubted Saddam had such weapons? Evne if there is, what doubt is he referring to? I certainly had no doubt, based on what I knew that Saddam had them(though I can admit that now I have some doubt). President Bush obviously had no doubt that Saddam had them. This is not a lie, it is a judgement that he made based on all the evidece he had. The rest of the world intelligence orginizations and leaders agreed(at least largely) with his assesment. To date you cannot show that he was even wrong, so it is hardly justifiable to call him a liar.
Regardless of whether or not Bush "lied" to the American people, it's pretty clear that the Democrats were not fooled into the war, as many of them are now claiming. In many cases, these folks voted to support the Iraq invasion because they thought Bush approval ratings were too high to oppose. Now Bush's ratings are lower and the American public is making impatient noises about Iraq. Suddenly some Democrats are saying, "well I never would have supported the war if Bush hadn't said this or that." Yeah, right.
I do believe that the administration knowingly made misleading statements about Iraq, but I think that the vast majority of the Democrats' commentary on this has been disingenuous and counter-productive.
"I love posts like this. They make me giggle like a little girl! I can't tell if Dean and his crew of CNN-baked brownies are for real, or actually progressives poking fun at conservatives!"
It's taken awhile, but I'm convinced it's for real. And it only seems funny at first glance.
Why do so many have this belief that Bush, *alone* should be required to be omniscient? Why do they hold *one man alone* (and perhaps his advisors) to a standard, that by their measure, almost every other informed human being on this planet supposedly failed? Why?
Because he is the one-and-only Commander in Chief of the US military, the most deadly and powerful fighting force the world has ever seen.
All this macho talk of war makes me wonder why didn't you people join up and fight the just and moral war you are talking about?
Look at all the people that joined up for WWII. Some of you seem to have such strong feelings about the righteousness of the war that I don't understand why you aren't in bootcamp right now rather than blathering on and on about it.
WWII. I'd have joined in a second. This crap war, no way. What a waste of resources for the war crazy ass terrorists who want to blow up random civilians here in the US.
And don't give me the Saddam - terrorist link. No proof. Don't give me imminent threat. No proof. Don't give me "free the Iraqis from Saddam." No proof. Less than no proof. Since some in the current administration looked the other way when Saddam was on our side gassing his own people. Some in the administration were even making business deals with the maniac in 1991. So don't give me that crap. If we cared about "people" and wanted to free them from dictators, we'd be stomping all over Africa right now.
Perhaps we should. They have plenty of oil and I bet some of the starving ones would love to have a McDonald's or Starbucks on the block.
"Don't give me "free the Iraqis from Saddam." No proof. Less than no proof. Since some in the current administration looked the other way when Saddam was on our side gassing his own people."
Ok, I've got rhetorical whiplash from the speed of THAT logical reversal. How exactly do you make a case that the Iraqis did not need freeing from Saddam when you claim immediately afterwards that he was using chemical weapons on them?
You know, I kinda thought that using chemical weapons on civilians, particularly your OWN civilians, was just wrong. I also thought that this was a non-controversial opinion. Guess I was wrong....
That's ridiculous BS and you know it. Bush wasn't even President when Saddam was gassing the Kurds, and NO President has ever endorsed that action, Democrat or Republican. In case I need to spell out my meaning, here it is:
Jay first said "Don't give me "free the Iraqis from Saddam." No proof. Less than no proof."
This means that he does not believe that there was a moral justification for removing Saddam Hussein. He specifically says that there was "no proof" that Saddam had put the Iraqi people in a position such that they needed freeing. This is a position of mindboggling stupidity, but it gets worse.
He then mentions the period of time "...when Saddam was on our side gassing his own people."
There is the ancillary implication that Saddam was a U.S. puppet in our war against the Iraqi people, which is ridiculous on its face, but evidently logical to some people. Jay, take a bow. However, the key point is that SADDAM USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON HIS OWN PEOPLE. As I pointed out earlier, being on the receiving end of chemical weapons from the leader of your own country should non-controversially put you in the category of "people who need freeing," contrary to Jay's point immediately beforehand.
Bush never made this argument. It is not "actual policy" that people gassed by their leadership don't need freeing from that leadership. That point is courtesy of Delusional Jay, who fortunately has no chance of becoming President of the United States.
Picking nits, Sam. Bush's daddy and all the retreads from his administration that populate this one had no trouble doing business with this “puppet” while he was using WMDs on Iran and the Shiites and even blowing up American Seamen. Now he’s a very bad man from whom his people must be freed to make his neighbors safe. Gimme a break. Saddam has never changed his spots, so what has changed? Oh, that’s right, he no longer had the WMDs.
I still believe The ex Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahatir muhammad said that Israel is controlling the world by proxy. Bush attacked Iraq because Israel worries that Iraq will attack Israel with weapon of mass destruction. So in conclusion, BUSH IS Sharon's slave. GO SLAVE GO. WE KILL ALL THE MUSLIM AND YOU PROTECT ME OK. GOT IT!!!
The biggest lie?
"We struck Iraq in revenge for 9/11."
This is paraphrased, of course: "We have clear proof that Saddam has and is building weapons of mass destruction."
Sorry, but Bush said it and it was a lie. I don't care how many other reasons you people have to throw at me and call me some crazy leftist focusing on one miniscule fact to blow something someone said way out of proportion. The Bush administration said it multiple times and used it as their primary reason to go to war in Iraq. And it was a lie. The end.
In the words of Roy Scheider in Jaws: "We're going to need a bigger poll"
I see a diminutive man dressed in brightly colored silk clothes. He sits in a polished saddle and furiously whacking his mount with a riding crop. Snap, Snap, Snap but he isn't going anywhere because the horse is DEAD!
Yeah, I should have put "We're in Iraq to avenge 9/11" because that's a total crock too. Too bad I forgot it.
As for the bit about Weapons of Mass Destruction: yeah, and only the German, French, Canadian, American, Spanish, and every other government in the region thought he had them. So did everyone in the Clinton administration, and the United Nations. So that makes it a "lie" by Bush, right?
Yeah, I should have added that to the list too. Too bad I can't find a convenient way to squinch it all in there: "BushLiedbecauseeventhough everyoneintheUNandEuropeangovernmentsandeveryoneelseagreedthathehadWMDsit'shisfaultanywaybecausehisnameisBush."
Or something like that.
Yes, ESP, I'd think it's a dead horse too, if it weren't for all the people who claim they "support the war" and then keep bringing up spurious bullshit about how "Bush lied" or that we went to war for revenge for 9/11 or because we're bullies or imperialists or want oil. You'd think these stupid, ill-informed arguments would be gone by now, wouldn't you? But they just. won't. die.
if it weren't for all the people who claim they "support the war" and then keep bringing up spurious bullshit about how "Bush lied" or that we went to war for revenge for 9/11
Uh, no, Dean you're confused. It was POTUS who said we went to war in revenge for 9/11.
President Bush said it. It was President Bush. Revenge. 9/11. Iraq. President Bush.
You asked for the biggest lie. That was it. And President Bush said it. Repeatedly. In fact he just said it again today:
Sheesh.
Ara Rubyan -- which part of "same mentality" do you not understand?
Ara,
That's a lie? What planet do you live on? One can in fact make a strong case that we went to war in revenge for 9/11. The opposing force was the combination of al Qaeda and the Taliban; the location was Afghanistan. Of course, one can also make the strong counter-argument that there were several other reasons based around justice, repetition prevention, etc., not just the motivation of revenge.
I'm surprised you included that quote, given that it completely undermines your own argument. Bush is drawing a parallel as to motivation, also known as using an ANALOGY, which happened to be both reasonable and justified. Nowhere in the statement you presented is there 1) any mention of revenge, or 2) any lie whatsoever. Would you care to try again?
The Biggest Lie?
"That this poll is NOT just baiting of Ara to get him to spew more nonsense"
dowingba:
Please provide any facts that establish the proposition that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq.
Note that:
-editorials don't count.
-dislike of, or severe approval of the current administration doesn't count.
-rants about Bush's many faults don't count.
-self-referential or arguments by conclusion (e.g. "he lied because he lied!") don't count.
That "one miniscule fact" that you focus on must be really small. I've never seen it over here. :)
You, of course, cannot be referring to the claim that Bush lied, as that is a conclusion, not a fact. Unless you have some irrefutable proof of that, of course.
The problem is that we only have two facts:
1)the Bush adminstration spoke as if they believed that Hussein had WMDs in hand.
2)we haven't found much yet. Hints and such, but not much else.
Now, I'd just love to hear your reasoning how this results in the conclusion that Bush lied. To make this claim without any other facts is, well, not logical, literally. How can you claim that you know Bush lied, as that implies you have some sort of private avenue into his head?
Are you aware of how difficult it is to develop an accurate intel assessment with even the best data?
Please note that I'm not even trying to address your statement WMDs were the primary motivation for the war. Nor am I calling you a crazy liberal.
What I am saying is that you have literally no logical basis for your claim. No facts -to my knowledge- have ever been advanced to support that claim. Neither you nor anyone else has provided any evidence at all.
Please provide any proof that Bush knew that Hussein truly did not have WMDs.
I fear that this appeal to logic will not deter you, as you've already said that you "don't care how many other reasons you people have to throw at me."
Ara: gee, I'm sorry, in the quote you cite to support your claim, I missed the part where Bush said anything like "this latest bombing shows that we invaded Iraq as payback for 9/11." Nope. Didn't see that part.
Did you quote all of the pertinent graf? :)
Hell, even if he said it was the same people that did 9/11 (which he didn't) that quote has no bearing on the Bush administration's motivations.
ESP: cute. Asinine, and addresses no real points. But cute...
Casey: http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1368124,00.html
I can also show you about 2,340 more pages that referenced this: http://www.google.ca/search?q=US+Secretary+of+State+Colin+Powell+was+under+persistent+pressure+from+the+Pentagon+and+White+House+to+include+questionable+intelligence+in+his+report+on+Iraq%27s+weapons+of+mass+destruction+he+delivered+at+the+United+Nations+last+February%2C+a+US+weekly+report&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
I originally got it off Yahoo News but they have sinced taken down their page (they only keep pages for 30 days, it seems).
Sorry, but it seems to be the biggest lie from the war, which is what Dean was asking about.
P.S. Dean sorry about the big URLs screwing up your pages, convert them to links if you want.
And here is documentation that bush claimed they had evidence:
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text2003/0208bush.htm
Here are some quotes from the page in question:
"The Iraqi regime's violations of Security Council Resolutions are evident, they are dangerous to America and the world, and they continue to this hour"
"The Iraqi regime has actively and secretly attempted to obtain equipment needed to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Firsthand witnesses have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents — equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery."
"Saddam Hussein was required to make a full declaration of his weapons programs. He has not done so. Saddam Hussein was required to fully cooperate in the disarmament of his regime. He has not done so. Saddam Hussein was given a final chance. He is throwing away that chance."
"To the contrary, the regime is pursuing an elaborate campaign to conceal its weapons materials and to hide or intimidate key experts and scientists."
All said by mr. Bush himself in a radio address or something or other.
Oh, and remember that speech Bush made 48 hours before the war?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
" 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."
Strange how later the CIA said "there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons." (referenced in my post above). Whew. Okay, I'm done.
Actually, I'd suggest the biggest lie is that the Gulf War ended in 1991.
dowingba,
Lots of quotes, and yet, strangely, not a lie among them. How very curious. Not a single one of those claims has EVEN been established to be false (which by itself would not prove a lie), and several of those points have been conclusively demonstrated to be true by the interim Kay report. Try again.
I love posts like this. They make me giggle like a little girl! I can't tell if Dean and his crew of CNN-baked brownies are for real, or actually progressives poking fun at conservatives!
This can go on and on how Bush lied. Bush was patient. Saddam had been working with scientist involving chemicals that could kill millions, he killed thousands of his own people. Take 9-11 out and just look at what that madman was up to and how very close he was to destroying us. Do you really think playing this pety game of Bush LIED is what is important?
I think terror is what we should be concentrating on. I believe Bush took all the steps he shoud before he went to war. He went to congress, He went to the United Nations.
Don't listen to rumors. Listen to different media. Try reading different newspapers than you are always relying on. Try differnt channels. Read blogs from the soldiers in Iraq. I bet you will stop this pety Bush lied crap.
We need to take a good look at the democrats that are running and try to figure out what plan they have. We need to back up our troops that Bush sent over there.
Think about it.
Janelle
The BUSH LIED!!!! bit is just too important for the so-called "anti-war" people to let go...if BUSH DIDN'T LIE!!!! then they have to support the action (or look extremely petty)...if Bush lied, then its ok to be opposed, ergo Bush lied. Never underestimate the pull of circular reasoning.
Ara: not a single thing you quoted by the President indicates that we went to war in revenge for 9/11. Yeesh. You've got a very creative way of spinning, that's for sure though.
Dowingba: What others said. You're declaring someone who could be wrong to be a liar. That's dishonest.
Although, in point of fact, at least a couple of the mobile labs were found, we have found biotoxins in sufficient quantity to kill thousands and that could easily be turned into quantities to kill millions. We haven't found as much as we thought--so far anyway.
So it's all "lies." Yeah whatever.
" 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."
That is not just Bush being wrong. He's not saying "there might be some of the most lethal weapons ever devised there", he's saying "Intelligence...leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Which is a lie.
And Janelle: Do you really think playing this pety game of Bush LIED is what is important?
This is what I was talking about in my original comment on this thread. I'm merely stating that there was a lie, not whether or not the USA should have gone to war. But in all fairness, the righties were pushing for Clinton's impeachment based on the fact that he lied about having sex with an intern, for heaven's sakes. This is just a little bit more serious than that. Just a tad.
dowingba...
The statement you quote:
"Intelligence...leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
It might be inaccurate. I don't think we can say for sure, yet. At least I certainly can't. But, for the sake of argument, even if we say the statement is inaccurate, that doesn't mean it was a lie. There's a difference.
Dictionary.com provides these two definitions of lie:
1) A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2) Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
In order for that statement to be a lie, you must argue that Bush knew that all the intelligence that he had, that the British had, that the UN had, and that the world had was wrong, and, further, Bush knew it was wrong, yet presented it to the American people simply to justify war.
Is that really your argument?
That is not just Bush being wrong. He's not saying "there might be some of the most lethal weapons ever devised there", he's saying "Intelligence...leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Which is a lie.
Prove it.
Dean,
Well, in a way, it is all our fault - and President Bush carries primary responsibility for this.
While its technically un-necessary for us to fully mobilize the United States because this would result in a gigantic amount of military redundancy, what we have seen is that the failure to institute full mobilization (ala WWII) has been to allow some people to pretend that this war is something other than a vital matter of life and death for us.
On 9/12, Bush should have just gone to Congress and requested declarations of war against the Axis of Evil nations (plus a few others thrown in for good measure) and then set about building up a 25 million man conscript military force (no exemptions!!!). This would have forged unity among our enemies, thus temporarily making our task a bit harder but with everyone having some close friend or family member in uniform it would have prevented anyone from even pretending there was logic or morality upon the so-called "anti-war" side.
Ah, well, thats all 20/20 hindsight - now, as you point out, the real battlefield of the War on Terrorism is here at home; can we of the pro-victory side keep faith long enough to prevent the machinations of the pro-defeat side from bearing fruit? I think we can and will. It'll be nettlesome, but in the long run I think that the broad mass of the people understand 9/11.
"Intelligence leaves no doubt": did he believe this? Did he have reason to believe it? Did Clinton have reason to believe it when he said the same exact sorts of things? Or Madelaine Albright? Or half the Democrats in the Congress? Was Hans Blix a liar? Tony Blair? All of them, all just big stinking liars because, after all, they said they were certain?
If you say, "There is no doubt that my wife loves me," and she divorces you, does that mean you're a liar?
If Bush was simply telling the truth as he saw it and was simply wrong, wouldn't that make you a liar for your own false accusation? Come off it man! You're just plain not being fair.
so...Dean:
Bush is either a liar or a dope?
Which one?
"Bush is either a liar or a dope?"
I would say the latter, but not moreso than any other person who was equally well informed and came to the exact same conclusion as he did. This was Not. At. All. a point of contention in any of the intervening years between GWI and GWII. It is not as if Bush convinced us, the unbelieving masses, that Saddam had WMDs. It is also not true that he believed Saddam to be innocent, and was fooled by someone else into thinking this was not the case.
Why do so many have this belief that Bush, *alone* should be required to be omniscient? Why do they hold *one man alone* (and perhaps his advisors) to a standard, that by their measure, almost every other informed human being on this planet supposedly failed? Why?
Is it merely that it is politically expedient? That is blind partisanship, and intellectual dishonesty. Saying anything, and taking any position to replace the person in power because you do not percieve him as On Our Side, may help the Party, but it hurts the Country.
It's a lie because he said there's no doubt and there's certainly plenty of doubt. Unless he, being the most powerful man in the world with access to the most, the best, intelligence known to man, does have proof without a doubt that there's these weapons and deliberately isn't showing anyone (even the CIA). In which case he's lying, also.
Dean: Did he have reason to believe it?
Comparing Bush to a starstruck lover is just plain not fair. The fact is, if there were really some of the worst weapons ever known to man in Iraq, Bush would know, wouldn't he? He shouldn't be making guesses here. This isn't like trying to guess what someone's thinking (a la your starstruck lover analogy). For 12 years they have been watching every inch of Iraq 24 hours a day. The UN has had weapons inspectors in and out of there plenty of times. The US has even had their own spies running about there on the ground. For 12 years. And I'm sorry, if after all that, he can't provide a shred of concrete evidence...he sure doesn't have much reason to believe himself.
Dowingba,
There is still very strong evidence that Saddam did in fact "continue to posses and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised". Of course you can get into all kinds of semantic arguments as to what that phrase really should mean, and thus far we certainly have not found an arsenal of such weapons. We have uncovered reference strains for some biological agents as well as evidence that other similar caches exist.
There is also evidence that while Iraq had lost much, if not all, of it's CW production capability it had facilities that could be easily converted for such a use and likely had plans to do so.
All evidence does indicate that Iraq had no real nuclear weapon capability(whew!), but that attempts were being made to develop at least the technology.
And finally Iraq was working to develop siginificant improvements to their delivery system capability increasing range and effectiveness of missles.
A detailed summary of the us findings can be found here http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html
So, to even claim that President Bush was wrong is premature. As to the claim that he was lying, you seem to hang it all on saying "intelligence leaves no doubt". Yet that was not a lie. You may argue that it was wrong, but can you point to anyone that had access to high level intelligence that really doubted Saddam had such weapons? Evne if there is, what doubt is he referring to? I certainly had no doubt, based on what I knew that Saddam had them(though I can admit that now I have some doubt). President Bush obviously had no doubt that Saddam had them. This is not a lie, it is a judgement that he made based on all the evidece he had. The rest of the world intelligence orginizations and leaders agreed(at least largely) with his assesment. To date you cannot show that he was even wrong, so it is hardly justifiable to call him a liar.
So while concrete evidence has not, as yet
Ok ignore that last sentance fragment, apparently I didn't delete all of that part of my thought and it was left stuck at the end. ;)
Regardless of whether or not Bush "lied" to the American people, it's pretty clear that the Democrats were not fooled into the war, as many of them are now claiming. In many cases, these folks voted to support the Iraq invasion because they thought Bush approval ratings were too high to oppose. Now Bush's ratings are lower and the American public is making impatient noises about Iraq. Suddenly some Democrats are saying, "well I never would have supported the war if Bush hadn't said this or that." Yeah, right.
I do believe that the administration knowingly made misleading statements about Iraq, but I think that the vast majority of the Democrats' commentary on this has been disingenuous and counter-productive.
"I love posts like this. They make me giggle like a little girl! I can't tell if Dean and his crew of CNN-baked brownies are for real, or actually progressives poking fun at conservatives!"
It's taken awhile, but I'm convinced it's for real. And it only seems funny at first glance.
CM:
Why do so many have this belief that Bush, *alone* should be required to be omniscient? Why do they hold *one man alone* (and perhaps his advisors) to a standard, that by their measure, almost every other informed human being on this planet supposedly failed? Why?
Because he is the one-and-only Commander in Chief of the US military, the most deadly and powerful fighting force the world has ever seen.
That is why we hold him to a higher standard.
GWB Sr. and Clinton should be held at the same standard as the current President, don't you think?
If not, please explain why.
All this macho talk of war makes me wonder why didn't you people join up and fight the just and moral war you are talking about?
Look at all the people that joined up for WWII. Some of you seem to have such strong feelings about the righteousness of the war that I don't understand why you aren't in bootcamp right now rather than blathering on and on about it.
WWII. I'd have joined in a second. This crap war, no way. What a waste of resources for the war crazy ass terrorists who want to blow up random civilians here in the US.
And don't give me the Saddam - terrorist link. No proof. Don't give me imminent threat. No proof. Don't give me "free the Iraqis from Saddam." No proof. Less than no proof. Since some in the current administration looked the other way when Saddam was on our side gassing his own people. Some in the administration were even making business deals with the maniac in 1991. So don't give me that crap. If we cared about "people" and wanted to free them from dictators, we'd be stomping all over Africa right now.
Perhaps we should. They have plenty of oil and I bet some of the starving ones would love to have a McDonald's or Starbucks on the block.
Jay,
"Don't give me "free the Iraqis from Saddam." No proof. Less than no proof. Since some in the current administration looked the other way when Saddam was on our side gassing his own people."
Ok, I've got rhetorical whiplash from the speed of THAT logical reversal. How exactly do you make a case that the Iraqis did not need freeing from Saddam when you claim immediately afterwards that he was using chemical weapons on them?
You know, I kinda thought that using chemical weapons on civilians, particularly your OWN civilians, was just wrong. I also thought that this was a non-controversial opinion. Guess I was wrong....
Don't blame Jay, Sam. You got that pain in the neck from Bush. And it's not just from irreconcilable rhetoric, it's actual policy.
shep,
That's ridiculous BS and you know it. Bush wasn't even President when Saddam was gassing the Kurds, and NO President has ever endorsed that action, Democrat or Republican. In case I need to spell out my meaning, here it is:
Jay first said "Don't give me "free the Iraqis from Saddam." No proof. Less than no proof."
This means that he does not believe that there was a moral justification for removing Saddam Hussein. He specifically says that there was "no proof" that Saddam had put the Iraqi people in a position such that they needed freeing. This is a position of mindboggling stupidity, but it gets worse.
He then mentions the period of time "...when Saddam was on our side gassing his own people."
There is the ancillary implication that Saddam was a U.S. puppet in our war against the Iraqi people, which is ridiculous on its face, but evidently logical to some people. Jay, take a bow. However, the key point is that SADDAM USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON HIS OWN PEOPLE. As I pointed out earlier, being on the receiving end of chemical weapons from the leader of your own country should non-controversially put you in the category of "people who need freeing," contrary to Jay's point immediately beforehand.
Bush never made this argument. It is not "actual policy" that people gassed by their leadership don't need freeing from that leadership. That point is courtesy of Delusional Jay, who fortunately has no chance of becoming President of the United States.
Picking nits, Sam. Bush's daddy and all the retreads from his administration that populate this one had no trouble doing business with this “puppet” while he was using WMDs on Iran and the Shiites and even blowing up American Seamen. Now he’s a very bad man from whom his people must be freed to make his neighbors safe. Gimme a break. Saddam has never changed his spots, so what has changed? Oh, that’s right, he no longer had the WMDs.
I still believe The ex Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahatir muhammad said that Israel is controlling the world by proxy. Bush attacked Iraq because Israel worries that Iraq will attack Israel with weapon of mass destruction. So in conclusion, BUSH IS Sharon's slave. GO SLAVE GO. WE KILL ALL THE MUSLIM AND YOU PROTECT ME OK. GOT IT!!!