George Bush lied about Iraq...

[Deicide]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study

[Decker]

I think anyone stepping back from the propaganda assault for even a moment would have looked at the Iraqi situation and realize it was no threat to the US.

The subsequent WMD inspecions prior to the invasion bore that out.

If Iraq attacked the US or armed an opponent of ours, the US would vaporize the country.  No leader is so stupid as to cut his own throat.   

[War-Horse]

Exactly.   Lies were told to gather support.  What lies you Ask???  No WMD's.

[OzmO]

I think anyone stepping back from the propaganda assault for even a moment would have looked at the Iraqi situation and realize it was no threat to the US.

The subsequent WMD inspecions prior to the invasion bore that out.

If Iraq attacked the US or armed an opponent of ours, the US would vaporize the country.  No leader is so stupid as to cut his own throat.   

You don't even really need to step back form it.   We invaded a country unprovoked based on suspicion.

[Bodvar]

There is a huge problem with this "Bush Lied People Died" theory.

If the US government would make up such an elaborate lie in order to conduct a war. Why wouldn't they have planted WMD's in Iraq in order to bolster their case?

Sorry, it just doesn't add up.

[240 is Back]

There is a huge problem with this "Bush Lied People Died" theory.

If the US government would make up such an elaborate lie in order to conduct a war. Why wouldn't they have planted WMD's in Iraq in order to bolster their case?

Sorry, it just doesn't add up.

once tested, the origin of those weapons would have been revealed.  The chem signature would have pointed to an advanced facility, certainly not in Iraq.

WHen there is evidence, and it's scrutaiized, you have smoking guns.  It's easier for them to have no evidence, just lots of info and disinfo, to keep everyone confused long enough to accomplish what they wanted in Iraq.

[headhuntersix]

Planting would have been risky..but here is where the libs loose me. They blame Bush, think he's an idiot, think the CIA is evil etc etc..yet can't believe that either of them could have made a mistake in assuming that Iraq had WMDS and might use them or more importantly sell them or loose control of them. Further...generally don't need to fear another sovereign nation as Decker points out, but where he looses me is that we're not fighting a sovereign nation as much as we're fighting a loosely tied organization or organizations who are well funded and trained but not tied to any country. If AQ detonates a dirty bomb or nuke...we have no recourse. We have nothing to bomb or target. We'll be doing what we are doing now..hunting small cells and trying to roll up the leadership.

[Decker]

Planting would have been risky..but here is where the libs loose me. They blame Bush, think he's an idiot, think the CIA is evil etc etc..yet can't believe that either of them could have made a mistake in assuming that Iraq had WMDS and might use them or more importantly sell them or loose control of them. Further...generally don't need to fear another sovereign nation as Decker points out, but where he looses me is that we're not fighting a sovereign nation as much as we're fighting a loosely tied organization or organizations who are well funded and trained but not tied to any country. If AQ detonates a dirty bomb or nuke...we have no recourse. We have nothing to bomb or target. We'll be doing what we are doing now..hunting small cells and trying to roll up the leadership.

Al Qaeda had no ongoing relationship with Iraq.  Saudi Arabia or Pakistan...Yes.  But not Iraq.

Bush is not an idiot.  He's a clumsy speaker and not competent when it comes to the compassion side of being a compassionate conservative, but he knows how to go for the jugular.  He's trounced the democrats, he's beaten his challengers--ask McCain what he thinks of Bush, and he's held on to power in the face of a series of scandals that would have downed other presidencies.

[240 is Back]

Planting would have been risky..but here is where the libs loose me. They blame Bush, think he's an idiot, think the CIA is evil etc etc..yet can't believe that either of them could have made a mistake in assuming that Iraq had WMDS and might use them or more importantly sell them or loose control of them. Further...generally don't need to fear another sovereign nation as Decker points out, but where he looses me is that we're not fighting a sovereign nation as much as we're fighting a loosely tied organization or organizations who are well funded and trained but not tied to any country. If AQ detonates a dirty bomb or nuke...we have no recourse. We have nothing to bomb or target. We'll be doing what we are doing now..hunting small cells and trying to roll up the leadership.

War plans to invade IRAQ arrived on Bush's desk on Sept 10, 2001.

They were unable to tie 911 to Iraq, although they did try, if you'll recall Rummy's memo that any ties, real or otherwise, are to be recorded, and the obvious PR campaign by CHeney to tie atta to iraq.

They wanted to invade iraq from minute one.  Does anyone deny that here?  These 2 oil men, who wrote in 2000 about the need to grab mid east oil quickly, with a strong grudge against iraq...

they wanted war with iraq.  No success in tying 911 to it, so the WMD lie emerged.

[headhuntersix]

That plan was being preped since 1994 and updated every 2 years. The plan that landed on his desk for review was seen by Bill Clinton atleast 3 times. It was a pretty good plan...then Rummy and wolfashitz canned it. If they felt they needed to use the 1st plan they might not have invaded at all.

[gtbro1]

Exactly.   Lies were told to gather support.  What lies you Ask???  No WMD's.

   politicians don't lie. 

[Bodvar]

once tested, the origin of those weapons would have been revealed.  The chem signature would have pointed to an advanced facility, certainly not in Iraq.

WHen there is evidence, and it's scrutaiized, you have smoking guns.  It's easier for them to have no evidence, just lots of info and disinfo, to keep everyone confused long enough to accomplish what they wanted in Iraq.

So, your saying that the same government that killed 3000 people on September 11th and covered it up, can't produce convincing WMD's?

It is not easier to produce no evidence and keep producing misinformation. There is no way to control information in the 21st century. It would have been easier to produce flawless fake WMD's in order to silence the critics, but they didn't do that because Bush didn't lie about anything.

How could Bush have been lying about the WMD's anyway, the whole world was convinced Saddam had WMD's way before Bush came into office. Then all of a sudden when it is revealed after the fact that there where no weapons, then all of a sudden Bush lied about something everybody knew was true beforehand.

[240 is Back]

the whole world was convinced Saddam had WMD's way before Bush came into office.

Which is exactly why they sent in UN inspeactors, who found no WMDs.

[Bodvar]

Which is exactly why they sent in UN inspeactors, who found no WMDs.

Yes UN inspectors are infallible with no agenda at all. Just ask North Korea.

[Decker]

Yes UN inspectors are infallible with no agenda at all. Just ask North Korea.

No and who cares what agenda they have.

The science was cooked and they are Iraq sympathizers with an anti-war bent.

They stood to gain much by cooking the books to avoid war.

[Bodvar]

No and who cares what agenda they have.

The science was cooked and they are Iraq sympathizers with an anti-war bent.

They stood to gain much by cooking the books to avoid war.

I care what agenda they have. If you put someone in a position which requires them to be impartial, then they having an agenda is a huge problem.

Your basically justifying lying in order to advance an anti-war agenda.

Either lying about WMD is bad or not Decker, you can't condone lying if it suits your agenda and then come down hard on supposed lying if it doesn't suit your agenda. That's highly dishonest.

[Decker]

...
How could Bush have been lying about the WMD's anyway, the whole world was convinced Saddam had WMD's way before Bush came into office. Then all of a sudden when it is revealed after the fact that there where no weapons, then all of a sudden Bush lied about something everybody knew was true beforehand.

It was the Bush administration that trusted the source "Curveball"--the iraqi cab driver pretending to be an insider w/ Hussein--b/c he told Bush what Bush wanted to hear:  there are WMDs all over Iraq.

So Bush trusted the cabdriver to start the war in the first place...and it was all lies.

"On April 23, 2006, CBS's "60 Minutes" interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."

Both the French intelligence service and the CIA paid Sabri hundreds of thousands of dollars (at least $200,000 in the case of the CIA) to give them documents on Saddam's WMD programs. "The information detailed that Saddam may have wished to have a program, that his engineers had told him they could build a nuclear weapon within two years if they had fissile material, which they didn't, and that they had no chemical or biological weapons," one of the former CIA officers told me.
On the eve of Sabri's appearance at the United Nations in September 2002 to present Saddam's case, the officer in charge of this operation met in New York with a "cutout" who had debriefed Sabri for the CIA. Then the officer flew to Washington, where he met with CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, who was "excited" about the report. Nonetheless, McLaughlin expressed his reservations. He said that Sabri's information was at odds with "our best source." That source was code-named "Curveball," later exposed as a fabricator, con man and former Iraqi taxi driver posing as a chemical engineer."http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/print.html

[Decker]

I care what agenda they have. If you put someone in a position which requires them to be impartial, then they having an agenda is a huge problem.

Your basically justifying lying in order to advance an anti-war agenda.

Either lying about WMD is bad or not Decker, you can't condone lying if it suits your agenda and then come down hard on supposed lying if it doesn't suit your agenda. That's highly dishonest.

What is the Inspectors's hidden agenda?

[Bodvar]

What is the Inspectors's hidden agenda?

Since it's hidden I can't tell you for sure. But more than likely it's a peace at all cost agenda, in which the inspectors ignore dangers in order to avoid "conflict".

Kind of like when Jimmy Carter oversaw the Venezuelan election when Hugo Chavez first ran for president. Carter later admitted to seeing all kinds of fraud and irregularities on the part of Chavez, but chose instead to tell everyone the election was legitimate, because if he would have reported the fraud there would have been "bloodshed". Thanks Jimmy Carter!

The ends seem to always justify the means to the left.

[headhuntersix]

I like this guy.....good points.

[Decker]

Since it's hidden I can't tell you for sure. But more than likely it's a peace at all cost agenda, in which the inspectors ignore dangers in order to avoid "conflict".

Kind of like when Jimmy Carter oversaw the Venezuelan election when Hugo Chavez first ran for president. Carter later admitted to seeing all kinds of fraud and irregularities on the part of Chavez, but chose instead to tell everyone the election was legitimate, because if he would have reported the fraud there would have been "bloodshed". Thanks Jimmy Carter!

The ends seem to always justify the means to the left.

So the Blix reports to the UN were all part of a peace scam?  Where's your proof?  Accusations are not worth the paper they are printed on.

We've already shown Bush's pro-war lies and use of con-men and cooked intel (Powell) to foment war. 

Seems like Blix was just doing his job.

[headhuntersix]

The UN..ur defending the UN. A body that hates the US. Basically if the US told the UN the sky was blue they's pass a usless resolution declaring it green.

[Decker]

The UN..ur defending the UN. A body that hates the US. Basically if the US told the UN the sky was blue they's pass a usless resolution declaring it green.

The US is a founding member.  And the US under Bush has had nothing but antipathy for the UN--it's irrelevant and Appointing that psycho Bolton to rep the US.

[Colossus_500]

the words Scam and UN are a match made in heaven! 

[headhuntersix]

The fact that we were a founding member....we had an off day. Despite the Chamberlain like appeasers of the Clinton foreign policy team, we've always had a problem with the UN. Clinton never met a deployment opportunity he didn't like.