Bush Actively Concealed WMD Information Prior to Iraq War

[Decker]

Agree.
Hold hearings, no need for them to be public. But walk the fcuking line. If you get majority, you have to respect the voters by taking some action.

The house holds much economic power. I don't see the Democrats doing anything with it?

They don't have the votes to override a Bush veto.

Bush Vetoes Troop Withdrawal Bill
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8ORRIT83&show_article=1

This Iraq fiasco is now owned entirely by the Republicans and the President.

[Straw Man]

The imminent danger from WMD's was always a smokescreen (now confirmed by many sources - Downing Street Memo, George Tenet, Doug Feith,etc.... After that no longer worked it became freeing them from a dictator and then helping them set up a new governement and now we can't leave or they will massacre each other ....more accurately the Shia's will massacre the Sunni's and then Saudi Arabia (Bush's boss) will jump in and of course Iran will jump in.

The real reason we went all along is to secure new sources or product for the oil companies and of course it didn't hurt that they could create hundreds of billions of dollars in government contracts for US companies.

If the Iraqi governement would just pass that damn hydrocarbon law Bush could declare the real victory.   Of course we'd have to maintain a presence there to ensure compliance with the law.

[Dos Equis]

Really?  Bush based his most damning WMD allegations on what a con-man cab driver from Iraq said.  Remember the insider Curveball? 

We went to war with Iraq largely b/c of the evidence Curveball provided.

On the "No WMD" side of the issue, we have Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister.

I would say he has a bit more credibility than Curveball the cab-driver, don't you?

And who in the hell does Bush think he is to disregard any countervailing evidence re the WMDs?  He should be impeached on that basis alone.

You see Beach Bum, we don't want to start wars if we don't have to start wars.  War should never be the first option.  It should be the last resort.  All the death, destruction and loss and what not should be avoided if possible.

Don't you think?

No.  Depends on the circumstance.  If we are attacked, war is the first option IMO.  Like 911.  Other than responding to an attack or perhaps making a preemptive strike, I do agree we should use diplomacy whenever possible as the first option. 

I think Dubya might have been influenced by Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, John Kerry, and the plethora of other Democrats who thought Saddam had WMDs and was a threat. 

[Straw Man]

No.  Depends on the circumstance.  If we are attacked, war is the first option IMO.  Like 911.  Other than responding to an attack or perhaps making a preemptive strike, I do agree we should use diplomacy whenever possible as the first option. 

I think Dubya might have been influenced by Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, John Kerry, and the plethora of other Democrats who thought Saddam had WMDs and was a threat. 

You can tell how much W was influenced by the Clinton's, Kennedy etc... by the way he did absolutely nothing about terrorism until Sept 12th

[militarymuscle69]

I can't believe you guys are still wasting your time arguing this shit. It doesn't matter, Bush will finsh his term and live happily until death.

[Decker]

No.  Depends on the circumstance.  If we are attacked, war is the first option IMO.  Like 911.  Other than responding to an attack or perhaps making a preemptive strike, I do agree we should use diplomacy whenever possible as the first option. 

I think Dubya might have been influenced by Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, John Kerry, and the plethora of other Democrats who thought Saddam had WMDs and was a threat. 

I understand your point but I was referencing the Iraq situation and not some general policy for war.

Again, I wish Dubya was influenced by the WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq in 2002-2003 prior to the invasion. 

If he had the patience that he begs for now re the Surge back then before the war, we would not be in the Iraq mess and he would not be a poster child for war crimes.

[Decker]

I can't believe you guys are still wasting your time arguing this shit. It doesn't matter, Bush will finsh his term and live happily until death.

I am not a fatalist.  I do believe we have free will.  I do believe a difference can be made.

[Dos Equis]

I understand your point but I was referencing the Iraq situation and not some general policy for war.

Again, I wish Dubya was influenced by the WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq in 2002-2003 prior to the invasion. 

If he had the patience that he begs for now re the Surge back then before the war, we would not be in the Iraq mess and he would not be a poster child for war crimes.

Understood.  Your original comments were much broader:  "War should never be the first option.  It should be the last resort."   

[Decker]

Understood.  Your original comments were much broader:  "War should never be the first option.  It should be the last resort."   

I understand now.

[militarymuscle69]

I am not a fatalist.  I do believe we have free will.  I do believe a difference can be made.

How, serious, what do you think will happen? How can you make a difference?

[Decker]

How, serious, what do you think will happen? How can you make a difference?

It takes one person with an idea...with a vision. 

Ideas, good and bad, can spread like a virus.

The counter-argument(s) to your assertion re one person not making a difference is that we live in a process determined reality where individual achievement means little.  What matters is being in the right place at the right time in the process.

Who needed FDR when anti-aristocratic sentiment of the times would carry the day?

Who needed Ronald Reagan when a pro-business/anti-communist atmosphere prevailed?

The actors aren't important b/c the play's the thing.

I don't agree with that.  I think I make a difference.  Somewhere and somehow...even if only to myself.

[militarymuscle69]

It takes one person with an idea...with a vision. 

Ideas, good and bad, can spread like a virus.

The counter-argument(s) to your assertion re one person not making a difference is that we live in a process determined reality where individual achievement means little.  What matters is being in the right place at the right time in the process.

Who needed FDR when anti-aristocratic sentiment of the times would carry the day?

Who needed Ronald Reagan when a pro-business/anti-communist atmosphere prevailed?

The actors aren't important b/c the play's the thing.

I don't agree with that.  I think I make a difference.  Somewhere and somehow...even if only to myself.

as long as you realize it is only to yourself.....you make a difference in the Iraq war debate the same way Cindy Sheehan did.....zero...aside from proving what an ass you are shouting democratic CTs

[Decker]

as long as you realize it is only to yourself.....you make a difference in the Iraq war debate the same way Cindy Sheehan did.....zero...aside from proving what an ass you are shouting democratic CTs

Really?  Wow.

I fail to see where you have ever put me in my place on the Iraq war debate?  I, however, can point to multiple instances of where you are dead wrong on your sentimental yet erroneous beliefs about Iraq:  from the legality of the invasion to the carving up of Iraqi assets, the one thing about your opinion that has been so right is that you have been consistently wrong.

So if I were you, I would be a little more careful about flying the 'legend in your own mind' flag b/c you seem to be the walking epitome of that sentiment.

[militarymuscle69]

Really?  Wow.

I fail to see where you have ever put me in my place on the Iraq war debate?  I, however, can point to multiple instances of where you are dead wrong on your sentimental yet erroneous beliefs about Iraq:  from the legality of the invasion to the carving up of Iraqi assets, the one thing about your opinion that has been so right is that you have been consistently wrong.

So if I were you, I would be a little more careful about flying the 'legend in your own mind' flag b/c you seem to be the walking epitome of that sentiment.

I will believe the war in Iraq was Illegal when I see someone tried for it.......You have nothing but 3rd party knowledge of Iraq son....after your next tour, then you can tell me how things are going in Iraq...

[Decker]

I will believe the war in Iraq was Illegal when I see someone tried for it.......You have nothing but 3rd party knowledge of Iraq son....after your next tour, then you can tell me how things are going in Iraq...

Thank you for serving your country.

But your anecdotal evidence about Iraq means nothing to me.

I don't have to be a soldier to read the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Holdings and Resolution 1441 and understand that our president has satisfied the requirements to be labeled a war criminal because he misused a congressional grant of authority to use force to disarm Iraq, as per REs. 1441, when Iraq was already under inspection for wmds (i.e. complying w/ UN resolution 1441).

So you can hide behind your anecdotal evidence.

I know you are smarter than that.  On some level you know I'm right.

[militarymuscle69]

Thank you for serving your country.

But your anecdotal evidence about Iraq means nothing to me.

I don't have to be a soldier to read the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Holdings and Resolution 1441 and understand that our president has satisfied the requirements to be labeled a war criminal because he misused a congressional grant of authority to use force to disarm Iraq, as per REs. 1441, when Iraq was already under inspection for wmds (i.e. complying w/ UN resolution 1441).

So you can hide behind your anecdotal evidence.

I know you are smarter than that.  On some level you know I'm right.

if it isn't a war, how can he be a war criminnal?

[Decker]

if it isn't a war, how can he be a war criminnal?

Technically what he's done is "Crimes against Humanity" and "Crimes against Peace", 'war crimes' is just a title comprehending those charges.

[w8tlftr]

I'm still waiting for the left to bring Bush up on formal charges. 

Of course that would mean that all of those on the left that authorized military force would be guilty too.

[Decker]

I'm still waiting for the left to bring Bush up on formal charges. 

Of course that would mean that all of those on the left that authorized military force would be guilty too.

It's not up to the 'left' to bring war crimes charges against the president.  That's for the World Court to do.  The democrats can only vote to impeach Bush.  But thanks to spineless republicans, that will never happen.  And in fairness there are democrats spineless on the matter too.

The US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the world court, the court with jurisdiction in this matter, b/c the US is already on the docket of that court for alleged terrorist war crimes perpetrated by the Reagan/Bush administration for the mining of Nicaraguan Harbors back in the Iran/Contra Scandal.

How are the democrats guilty of anything besides poor judgment in trusting the president's judgment?

The Congress authorized Bush, as commander and chief of the military, to use force, if necessary, to compel Iraq's compliance with UN resolution 1441 to disarm.

Iraq was complying with Res 1441 starting in 2002 by letting the WMD inspectors in to do their work and voluntarily providing the inspectors with requested materials.

Bush ordered the attack in 2003 anyways irrespective of Iraq's compliance with the Resolution.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Bush misused the Congressional grant of authority to use force to enforce a resolution that the Iraqis were already complying with.

It was Bush's call to make re the triggering of use of force and he broke the law to do it.  The democrats share no such blame.

[Dos Equis]

I'm still waiting for the left to bring Bush up on formal charges. 

Of course that would mean that all of those on the left that authorized military force would be guilty too.

Exactly.  Numerous members of Congress said Saddam was a threat and should be disarmed before the war.  Congress endorsed the war after it started.  There is no way they can try and impeach/remove Bush for the war now.  Really makes no sense.   

[Decker]

Exactly.  Numerous members of Congress said Saddam was a threat and should be disarmed before the war.  Congress endorsed the war after it started.  There is no way they can try and impeach/remove Bush for the war now.  Really makes no sense.   

Beach Bum, If I give you a gun and tell you that if the mugger threatening me doesn't cease and desist, you can shoot him.

The mugger stops threatening me.

Beach Bum shoots the mugger.

That is precisely what happened w/ the Iraq war.  Am I (Congress) to blame for your (Bush) shooting the mugger(Iraq)?  No.  You couldn't follow a simple instruction and what could have been self-defense is now murder.

On a related note, what about Bush's burying of evidence re No WMDs in Iraq?  What about Bush's continued coupling of Hussein and 9/11?  What of Bush's manufacturing of 'evidence' of Iraq's WMDs and the ease at which Curveball the Iraqi Cab Driver duped the Bush Adm into believing his tales of WMDs (solid source my ass)?

In other words Beach Bum are you surprised that the Democrats came to the conclusion that Iraq could pose a threat based on the Bush WMD 'evidence' and that the president should have at his disposal power to deal with that threat if the threat materializes?

[Dos Equis]

Beach Bum, If I give you a gun and tell you that if the mugger threatening me doesn't cease and desist, you can shoot him.

The mugger stops threatening me.

Beach Bum shoots the mugger.

That is precisely what happened w/ the Iraq war.  Am I (Congress) to blame for your (Bush) shooting the mugger(Iraq)?  No.  You couldn't follow a simple instruction and what could have been self-defense is now murder.

On a related note, what about Bush's burying of evidence re No WMDs in Iraq?  What about Bush's continued coupling of Hussein and 9/11?  What of Bush's manufacturing of 'evidence' of Iraq's WMDs and the ease at which Curveball the Iraqi Cab Driver duped the Bush Adm into believing his tales of WMDs (solid source my ass)?

In other words Beach Bum are you surprised that the Democrats came to the conclusion that Iraq could pose a threat based on the Bush WMD 'evidence' and that the president should have at his disposal power to deal with that threat if the threat materializes?

I think your hypothetical would be more accurate if you told me the mugger was threatening you and that I should shoot him, I shoot him, and then you tell me, repeatedly, that the shooting was justified.  You then give me more bullets to shoot the guy again.  Then you'd have to be the judge at my murder trial who decides whether or not the shooting was justified.  (Congress decides impeachment and the Senate removes from office.) 

I am not surprised that Democrats believed each other, both before and after Bush took office, that Saddam was a threat and needed to go.   

[Decker]

I think your hypothetical would be more accurate if you told me the mugger was threatening you and that I should shoot him, I shoot him, and then you tell me, repeatedly, that the shooting was justified.  You then give me more bullets to shoot the guy again.  Then you'd have to be the judge at my murder trial who decides whether or not the shooting was justified.  (Congress decides impeachment and the Senate removes from office.) 

I am not surprised that Democrats believed each other, both before and after Bush took office, that Saddam was a threat and needed to go.   

Bush was providing the WMD info from Curveball to all the Congress to ensure that everyone was on the same page re the danger presented by Iraq and its WMDs.  Remember the republican/Bush talking point that:  the democrats had access to the same intel the president did!  Not only was that true it was the height of intellectual dishonesty.  Bush Manufactured evidence and buried counterevidence.  If you can look at that and still accuse the democrats of complicity then you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

I read your analogy and it was good.  Wholly inaccurate, but good.  Now I know why analogies always breakdown no matter how well-intentioned.  So you're telling me that Bush was just listening to the democrats who were jonesing to attack Iraq from day one?  That they were soothsaying to George, keep up the attack George honey, you're doing a great job... 

I wonder if that happened before or after John Kerry voted against the funding bill?  Remember that famous flip-flop which really wasn't a flip-flop at all?

[Dos Equis]

Bush was providing the WMD info from Curveball to all the Congress to ensure that everyone was on the same page re the danger presented by Iraq and its WMDs.  Remember the republican/Bush talking point that:  the democrats had access to the same intel the president did!  Not only was that true it was the height of intellectual dishonesty.  Bush Manufactured evidence and buried counterevidence.  If you can look at that and still accuse the democrats of complicity then you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

I read your analogy and it was good.  Wholly inaccurate, but good.  Now I know why analogies always breakdown no matter how well-intentioned.  So you're telling me that Bush was just listening to the democrats who were jonesing to attack Iraq from day one?  That they were soothsaying to George, keep up the attack George honey, you're doing a great job... 

I wonder if that happened before or after John Kerry voted against the funding bill?  Remember that famous flip-flop which really wasn't a flip-flop at all?

You're saying Bush duped Congress.  The facts don't support you.  Decker why don't we track the comments from members of Congress regarding Saddam both before and after Bush took office?  I can start if you like.  Let me know.   

What I'm saying is Congress thought Saddam was a threat before and after Bush took office.  Congress then gave Bush the authority to strike.  I know you believe Bush misused that authority, but then Congress passed resolutions supporting the war after it started and after Bush supposedly misused this grant of authority to use force.  Then they funded the war and continue to do so.  IMO, that makes it impossible for Congress to now try and impeach the president for going to war.

And I like my hypothetical better.  It's more accurate.      

[Decker]

You're saying Bush duped Congress.  The facts don't support you.  Decker why don't we track the comments from members of Congress regarding Saddam both before and after Bush took office?  I can start if you like.  Let me know.   

What I'm saying is Congress thought Saddam was a threat before and after Bush took office.  Congress then gave Bush the authority to strike.  I know you believe Bush misused that authority, but then Congress passed resolutions supporting the war after it started and after Bush supposedly misused this grant of authority to use force.  Then they funded the war and continue to do so.  IMO, that makes it impossible for Congress to now try and impeach the president for going to war.

And I like my hypothetical better.  It's more accurate.      

Oh but the facts do support me.  Just do some reading on how the Bush administration listened to conmen like "CurveBall" and Chalabi just b/c they too wanted regime change. 

Where was Bush's famous patience when the WMD inspectors were finding nothing?  He attacked anyway.

That is the way of cowards.  Bush is a coward.  Have your target prone from following your directions and then attack.

Congress's activities re the war have nothing to do with the Commander and Chief violating inter-national law to attack Iraq.  It was his call to make...not the Congress.

Kerry pulled his support for the war b/c of Bush's illegal attack and was labeled a flipflopper by republican apologists--"he's against the troops" these zombies said.

Congress can impeach Bush and should b/c like I pointed out, he was the Commander and Chief making the call for attack.  Who cares who supported him before or after. 

Have a great weekend Beach Bum.
It was that man's responsibility and I believe in accountability for someone in such a supremely powerful position.