Facts don’t support the ‘Bush lied’ mantra
In her recent letter, “Time for president’s game of ‘Risk’ to end,” Mary Schumacher writes “ ... the Iraq war is based on lies. It is not even in dispute anymore.”
No longer summarily dismissed as wackos, the “Bush Lied People Died” crowd surely feel emboldened. Unfortunately for them, the facts do not support the assertion.
It is firmly established that almost every national and international leader who was involved with the decade-long struggle to get Iraq and Saddam to comply with restrictions, mandates and sanctions imposed on him by the (useless) U.N., agreed that Saddam was stockpiling and producing WMD. Sounds like a long list of liars from many political backgrounds.
Granted the WMD were highlighted as the president and many others pressed for action against Iraq. True, little evidence of post-1991 WMD has been discovered. Nonetheless, the list of reasons we and a host of other countries went to war was long and — most agreed at the time — credible.
What has changed? Well, obviously, war is long and horrible. Just as many of our enemies have said all along, we do not have the stomach for it. Those like Schumacher have been undermining it from the very beginning and now they are salivating at the prospect that our mission might fail. If this political environment existed in 1941, I suspect that German or Russian would be our national language by now!
John England, Denver
President Boy-George should simply be charged with being a 40 year AWOL/deserter Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) felon. Secondly, he and his pappy should be charged with "high crimes and misdeameanors", because they conspired to violate President Truman's executive order, which desegregated all of our armed forces. This happened when Poppa Bush carved out a slot for Boy-George in the racially segregated Texas Air National Guard and for his rich white cronies. They also violated the Civil RIghts Act of 1964.
Not to be left out of the Bush-clan draft-dodging sweepstakes was Bill Owens. Poppa Bush got him an unheard of and illegal congressional page draft-deferment too. If USAG Gonzo had any "nads" he would file criminal chrges against Bush and Billie Mae Owens.
Mitt Romney "cut and ran" from Vietnam, just the rest of the senior members. Mitt's pappy (Nixon administration cabinet member), got Mitt an illegal Mormon religious draft-deferement. 8 years earlier (non wartime), Wallace D. Muhammad requested a Muslim religious draft-deferment and he was sentenced to 3 years in prison. 18 years before that, Wallace's dad, Elijah Muhammad, sought a Muslim draft-deferment and he too was sentencced to 3 years in prison. Elijah was Muhammad Ali's religious advisor. Based on my math, Mitt owes African Americans 3 years in federal prison too. If elected, will Mitt pay restitution to the Muhammad-clan?
Your humble servant that served in 3 deployments to Vietnam.
jjxant you forgot your buddy bill who went to england and protested the war and was a true draft dodger.
you are a true blue repeat what you are told liberal left dumocrat
Denver Dep. USAG Troy Eid should arrest "BILLIE MAE OWENS". President "irrelevant" Carter, pardoned all Vietnam War draft-dodgers in the GOP. He did these for those that didn't commit perjury to circumvent U.S. Selective Service Board laws or broke UCMJ (illegal separation and discharge) laws. When the Vietnam broke-out, Chips Barry broke for AK (VISTA), J-Loop for the barley fields, K. Salazar for the priesthood, Tancredo foamed at his mouth, Allard in his kitchen designed his own draft-deferment, and Webb suddenly couldn't breathe.
Bill Owens went a step further. He conspired with Cong. Bush and Bushie got him an ilegal and unheard of congressional page draft-deferment. Eid, should arrange for Owens to be a 3 year cellmate and playmate for Nacchio.
Posted by jjxant on May 22, 2007 07:03 AMjjxant,
What? That was a whole lot of non-sensical rambling! Get off the computer and go to school young man!
Posted by on May 22, 2007 07:09 AMOf course Iraq had WMDs--we gave them to that country!! But I think you are missing the point, John. It sounds like a lot of people are upset with the handling of the war aftrer it started... oh, you know, like not having a realistic battle plan, not having the foresight to bring enough troops or equiptment, and not having any sort of exit strategy. Eisenhower said morale is the most important part of winning a war, and W. is finding that out right now--the hard way. Maybe he should have paid more attention in histrory class.
Posted by shaupeen on May 22, 2007 07:25 AMOn the subject of people avoiding Vietnam, lets not forget Tom Tancredo got a deferrment for mental illness!! He is still a nut.
Posted by Daisy on May 22, 2007 07:36 AMThere is one big, big problem with Mr. England's attempt to get George W. Bush off the hook of telling lies to justify his order to preemptively attack, invade and occupy Iraq.
Inspectors, on the ground, inside Iraq, were finding NO evidence on WMD programs or stockpiles weeks before Bush ordered the unprovoked attack.
On March 7, 2003, Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency reported to the UN Security Council that: "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq."
In his report, ElBaradei very clearly contradicted Bush allegations about aluminum tubes and uranium from Niger. Fully two weeks before Bush ordered the attack, we knew the truth. Read the transcript at: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.elbaradei/
On that same day, March 7, 2003, Hans Blix, chief U.N. weapons inspector, reported to the Security Council in a more technical presentation that they were not finding any evidence of chemical or biologocal WMD programs or stockpiles and the Iraqi cooperation with the inspections was improving. Here are three quotations:
"Initial difficulties raised by the Iraqi side about helicopters and aerial surveillance planes operating in the "no-fly" zones were overcome. This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance."
"Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food-testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen as well as large containers with seed-processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found."
"During inspections of declared or undeclared facilities, inspection teams have examined building structures for any possible underground facilities. In addition, ground-penetrating radar equipment was used in several specific locations. No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far."
Read the transcript at: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/
So, Bush knew that there was not a serious, or urgent WMD threat from Iraq -- yet he ordered the attack anyway -- maintaining up to the last moment before the U.S. bombs started falling on Baghdad that Saddam had to disarm his non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Oh, yes, that is what most people would call a LIE. As of today, 3,422 American troops have been killed in Iraq because of that deceit. As of today, 25,242 GIs have been wounded in Iraq because of Bush's lies. And ... as of today, tens and tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed because of the war George W. Bush started in Iraq.
Finally, a better analogy than Mr. Engand's attempt to in his last couple of sentences would be this: It was people like England who did not question, who had blind loyalty to their leader, that led citizens in 1930s Germany to follow Hitler's lies into disaster for their nation.
Let's hope that we finally get U.S. troops extricated from this horrible civil war in Iraq ... and that justice and accountablity is exacted upon Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for lying us into this immoral war and occupation.
Posted by Dave Chandler on May 22, 2007 07:41 AMJohn england,
What is it about the "struggle to get Iraq and Saddam to comply with restrictions, mandates and sanctions imposed on him ...", and the fact that he DID destroy the WMD stockpiles Iraq possessed that you are unable to connect? So what if every national and international leader believed that saddam was stockpiling WMDs? They were WRONG! Flat wrong. Is it OK for the CIA to get their information from third countries like the British, or the Mossad, without verifying the veracity of that intelligence? Look, Bush either lied, or he was duped. Which is it? Did he lie, or is he just a stupid dupe?
Either way, look where we are now.
I think you repeated them enough, Loonie
Posted by Daisy on May 22, 2007 09:42 AMlonnie,
Apparently, you can't see the irony of your four posts. YOU are the ignorant who believes bushs' lies.
How quickly people forget history. Status quo's cannot be maintained. Sooner or later someone or something comes along to upset the applecart.
Saddam Hussein "aspired to develop a nuclear capability and intended to work on rebuilding chemical and biological weapons after persuading the United Nations to lift sanctions," as quoted by Charles Duelfer in the "Duelfer" report to congress on Iraq's WMD program. It is certain that the U.S. and its allies could not have sustained the sanctions against Iraq. Do you remember the Peacenik's statements that over 500,000 Iraqi children had died because of sanctions? Do you remember the International scandals from Oil For Food? In hindsight, I would have given the sanctions five more years, tops.
President Bush stated in the rationale for war, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."
What would Saddam's actions have been if he was still in power regarding WMD today with no sanctions, French and Russian politicians in his pocket with Oil For Food and Iran, his mortal enemy, developing Nuclear weapons?
In light of Saddam's clear intentions, we could do nothing else but to act to remove him.
Posted by Nostra Damus on May 22, 2007 09:59 AMlonnie you are right,these clowns refuse to research facts.
Posted by bart on May 22, 2007 10:06 AMRe: Englands last paragraph and all that I personally have done to undermine the war in Iraq.
I honk at demonstrates who have "end the war" signs. Honking twice at the "Christians to end the war" people.
Refused to put made in China, "support our troops" ribbons on my car.
Voted for end the war candidates.
Read every article on the war, and watch all TV shows by different stations about the war in order to make up my own mind rather then believe the President.
Pay attention to part of media that is "End the war" crowd.
Ask questions of friends and relatives who have been there.
As for salivating over our defeat, that has already happened, we are just prolonging the agony by not naming this pig of a war a pig.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 22, 2007 10:26 AM
Loonie, you gave away your secret about repeating lies but you keep doing it.
Posted by Daisy on May 22, 2007 11:02 AMHere is a speach by the President of the Untied States:
"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
-President William Jefferson Clinton 1998
Or for better information check out the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
So, as Mike H said, "either he lied or was duped." Would that not apply to the 77 Senators that also voted for the Iraq resolution?
Mr. Chandler likes to roll out Mr. Blix's testimony of 2003. A FULL YEAR AFTER THE WAR RESOLUTION WAS PASSED.
And as General George S. Patton stated: "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan executed next week."
It's easy ot look back, AFTER THE FACT and say that Bush lied. To me, that is the cowards way to do it. It's so easy to criticize in hindsight.
My question then would be, what would Mary B have done, Lonnie, Mike h, or Mr. Chandler? You can criticize and call names, but could you lead?
Posted by Dan2 on May 22, 2007 11:06 AMWhat difference does it make what Lonnie, Mike h, or Mr. Chandler would have done. They are not the president. Bush is. That's where the buck stops..... or should.
Posted by nativeamerican on May 22, 2007 01:04 PMMy question then would be, what would Mary B have done, Lonnie, Mike h, or Mr. Chandler? You can criticize and call names, but could you lead?
Posted by Dan2
Leading a bunch of lemmings off of a cliff is not true leadership.
Posted by Obvious on May 22, 2007 01:12 PMJohn England, your letter is loaded with so many falsehoods that it's title is simply laughable. Dave Chandler did a nice job refuting much of it.
Your long list of "national and international leader[s]" who "agreed that Saddam was stockpiling and producing WMD" is nowhere to be found. I would remind you that most international leaders felt the whole campaign for war in Iraq was crap and refused to go along with it. Even Bush's most visible ally, Tony Blair, believed much of it was nonsense (but went along with it anyway). The Downing Street memos are most revealing on that point. As far as the national leaders who agreed, they like most of the populace believed the lies the Bush administration told them. They were not the originators of the lies. They were spoon-fed the same distorted and cherry-picked "intelligence" we all were.
You assert that "little evidence of post-1991 WMD has been discovered." Wrong again - NO evidence of post-1991 WMD has been discovered. In fact, none was discovered prior to the invasion, and the Bush administration knew this all too well. Let's examine a few more facts.
The Bush administration relied on "information" from one Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, obtained under torture, to support their claim that Saddam had, as Bush himself stated in October 2002, "trained al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases." But a DIA report from February of that same year completely discredited al-Libi and concluded that he had intentionally misled his interrogators. The administration had no other evidence to support this accusation.
The nameless, faceless, but now famous informant known as Curveball was a primary source for the "intelligence" which the Bush administration used to assert that Saddam had created mobile bio-weapons labs. Curveball was mentally unstable (it's not clear whether this condition resulted from repeated torture sessions or if it in fact preceded them), but they relied on his statements anyway. They made public pronouncements asserting the "fact" of these mobile labs well into 2004. In doing so, they ignored the findings of yet another DIA report, this one produced in May of 2003 by a highly expert weapons team on the ground in Iraq, which showed that the "weapons labs" that had been found in the desert near Irbil by the Kurds and by US troops near Mosul were nothing of the kind.
The facts of Saddam's "nuclear program" and the "evidence" of it's existence are well-known now, but they were equally well-known when Bush uttered the infamous 16 words in his 2003 state of the union address. "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." It simply wasn't true and they knew it. The Italian embassy documents were forgeries and they knew it. The reports out of Niger were false and they knew it. The CIA wanted those 16 words not to be uttered in public and they knew it.
You go on to assert that "the list of reasons we and a host of other countries went to war was long and — most agreed at the time — credible." It clearly would have been credible only to someone not familiar with the facts, and the Bush administration knew the facts. They knew the truth but found it inconvenient, to borrow a phrase.
Let me also address a few items from those writing in support of John England's letter.
Dan2 quotes Bill Clinton in 1998: "if Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future." It was well known, in 1998 and in 2002, that Saddam was NOT defying the world, that the weapons inspection process was working, and that his WMD had been destroyed. Dan2, you might also take note that Blix testified to the UN that there were no WMD in Iraq in March 2003, BEFORE the invasion began. If Bush had any decency, he'd have called the whole thing off then, if not sooner.
Nostra Damus asserts "in light of Saddam's clear intentions, we could do nothing else but to act to remove him." ND, I might intend to drive the family mini-van to the moon and back, but until some credible evidence emerges that this might actually be feasible, nobody should act on the assumption that's it's really going to happen.
Excellent rebuttals by Nicholas Couch!!
Posted by mike h on May 22, 2007 02:34 PMMr. Couch,
Wish everybody posting would read your last paragraph.
That's what I keep telling them about the whole "islamofascist" business; and the idea that if we leave Iraq sometime in the near future, wel'll be over-run in this country, and all forced to convert or lose our heads.
But then again, there's that word, "feasible"; and so few of the folks that keep looking under the bed for a Moslem with a scimitar before they get under the covers even own a dictionary, much less know how to use it.
Welcome aboard. One of the few places on the Internet that is both fun and frustrating at the same time. Hope you keep on posting anyway.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 22, 2007 02:45 PM"political environment existed in 1941, I suspect that German or Russian would be our national language by now!"
here we go again - a needless war against a tin pot dictator - who was impotent because NATO had him shut down in a portion of his country - DOES NOT EQUATE TO THE FREE WORLD's STRUGGLE AGAINST NAZI GERMANY AND THE SOVIET UNION. Nice try, Johnny boy but go and read a lot more history - you apparently need it.
Posted by Drew on May 22, 2007 02:45 PMOG, thanks. I've enjoyed reading your posts.
We've allowed ourselves to be enveloped by the blanket of fear and xenophobia that the Bushies have thrown over us since 9/11, to the extent that a rational approach even to the very notion of governance has become next to impossible for some people. I want to ask, for example, these folks who like to claim that we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here (or, as you mention, that if we leave Iraq the "terrorists" will follow us home) what they think is keeping the all-powerful terrorists from attacking us at home right now. If it is indeed possible for these people who "hate our freedom" so much to mobilize in sufficient numbers and to such an extent that they could actually invade the US successfully, why aren't they doing it right now? What the hell's keeping them in Iraq? Seriously. It's not as if defending that territory is what they're interested in, right? With 150,000 US troops bogged down in Iraq, we're practically defenseless on these shores, so why don't these legions of terrorists simply pick their asses up off the desert floor and come over here and get us?
Well now, you and I both know the answer to that one.
Posted by Nicholas Couch on May 22, 2007 03:28 PMOG, thanks. I've enjoyed reading your posts.
We've allowed ourselves to be enveloped by the blanket of fear and xenophobia that the Bushies have thrown over us since 9/11, to the extent that a rational approach even to the very notion of governance has become next to impossible for some people. I want to ask, for example, these folks who like to claim that we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here (or, as you mention, that if we leave Iraq the "terrorists" will follow us home) what they think is keeping the all-powerful terrorists from attacking us at home right now. If it is indeed possible for these people who "hate our freedom" so much to mobilize in sufficient numbers and to such an extent that they could actually invade the US successfully, why aren't they doing it right now? What the hell's keeping them in Iraq? Seriously. It's not as if defending that territory is what they're interested in, right? With 150,000 US troops bogged down in Iraq, we're practically defenseless on these shores, so why don't these legions of terrorists simply pick their arses up off the desert floor and come over here and get us?
Well now, you and I both know the answer to that one.
Posted by Nicholas Couch on May 22, 2007 03:30 PMThank you for your interesting letter. The liberals who support the so-called "Bush lied" mantra do not care about the facts. On the contrary, they will stop at nothing to promote their own political ends, even if such actions undermine the national security of our land. Your point is well taken.
Posted by B. Stuckey on May 22, 2007 04:21 PMB. Stuckey, you couldn't be more wrong. The facts make "Bush lied" the only tenable position to take.
Posted by Nicholas Couch on May 22, 2007 04:33 PMNicholas,
"B. Stuckey, you couldn't be more wrong. The facts make "Bush lied" the only tenable position to take."
Give him a chance, and he'll come up with something wronger...
Posted by Charles B on May 22, 2007 05:49 PMYo Stuckey:
"The aluminum tubes could only be used for nuclear fuel centrifuges"
True or False?
Bush lied, people died.
Mr. Couch
The facts make "Bush lied" the only tenable position to take.
What facts lead you to believe that Bush lied?
Posted by James Jones on May 22, 2007 08:43 PMJames Jones, do I really have to say it? Read my other posts on this web page. Read the one by Dave Chandler.
None of this stuff represents any great secrets or revelations. It's all been out there for years. I started tracking it all on my own site - www.monkeyslam.com - shortly before the '04 election. I gave that up about a year ago when I became more active on Daily Kos. Figured I'd get more readers that way. I was right.
Anyway, James, the verdict came in a long time ago. BushCo, as I like to refer collectively to the Bush administration, lied through their teeth to get us into Iraq. The only question still debatable is, of course, the big one: why? Jury's still out on that one. For me the best theory is the simplest: money. Vast personal fortunes derived from the oil business - the reason to go in and the reason to stay. We're not leaving Iraq any time soon, you can take that to the bank. I'm talking many, many years, if ever, and it probably doesn't matter who controls Congress or the White House after the '08 election.
Posted by Nicholas Couch on May 22, 2007 10:10 PMWhat it all comes down to is this: exactly why did Bush and Company decide to go to war and what did they tell us was the reason or reasons.
I think they talked themselves into believing this was a do-able war and then tried to talk us into believing the same thing.
Behind all the stated reasons is perhaps a reason we have to figure out ourselves.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 23, 2007 03:30 AMMr. Couch,
You went to some lengths but ducked the question. It shouldn't be difficult.
You understand, of course, the distinction between being wrong and lying. If Bush was lying then he must have known that Saddam did not have WMD and he lied to establish the pretense that he did. The question is:
How did Bush learn that Saddam did not have WMD?
Posted by James Jones on May 23, 2007 06:14 AMSharon B.
You're right. If we go back and study what Bush and Company said about Iraq maybe we can figure out the resaon for the invasion.
Let's look at these Bushie comments:
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Say - what if they didn't lie? What if they actually thought Saddma had WMD and turned out to be wrong?
But that can't be. Everybody knows that Bush lied and people died.
I didn't duck anything, James. You can read the English language, can't you? You can read what I wrote on this page, what Dave Chandler wrote, correct? Or maybe you'd prefer to ignore it. Well, that's your prerogative, I suppose, if you don't mind looking like a fool.
Posted by Nicholas Couch on May 23, 2007 07:44 AMMr. Couch,
Cherry-picking remarks from the Blix report will not do. This is from the same report.
On 14 February, I reported to the council that the Iraqi side had become more active in taking and proposing steps which potentially might shed new light on unresolved disarmament issues. Even a week ago, when the current quarterly report was finalized, there were still relatively little tangible progress to note. Hence, the cautious formulations in the report before you. As of today, there is more.
If you are going to continue insisting that Bush lied you hae to address two plain facts First, Blix made it clear that Saddam had not complied with the terms of his surrender a full decade later. Second, Blix's report was public - are you telling us that the historical fact is that Congress took Bush's word over Blix?
That really won't do now will it?
Hey did you guys notice the long list of politicians, Dems & Republicans that dodged military service? I'm a Vet and I want to know why we elect cowards to Congress, Senate and the White House? And what about America's darling hero, Muhammud Ali? There's another example of a coward avoiding service to his country and yet he is adored and hailed as a "hero". crap. then there's "Hanoi Jane", still making movies, why isn't she in jail for treason during time of war? I don't know if Bush lied or not. I suspect he just parroted the information he was fed at the time. I doubt if anyone besides Sadam and his close associates really knew exactly what was in Iraq at that time. The "Intelligence community" is rarely 100% certain despite what you see in the movies starring Jane Fonda about "the Greatest". crap.
Posted by Harry on May 23, 2007 08:16 AMThe "historical fact" is that UNMOVIC went into Iraq in late November 2002, well after the Congressional authorization for the use of force in Iraq, and well after the Democrats who voted for it had been sold BushCo's bill of goods. Blix's report to the UN didn't come until early March 2003. So there was no issue of Congress taking Bush's word over Blix. That's a straw man, James.
As far as cherry-picking goes, citing the paragraph you did is a prime example of just that. In the very next paragraph, Blix states "Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision." Throughout his presentation Blix makes clear that not only were the Iraqis cooperating with UNMOVIC, but that there was no WMD program of any kind active in Iraq. Here, for the comprehension-challenged, are some relevant passages:
"During inspections of declared or undeclared facilities, inspection teams have examined building structures for any possible underground facilities. In addition, ground-penetrating radar equipment was used in several specific locations. No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far."
"Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food-testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen as well as large containers with seed-processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found."
"This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance."
"One can hardly avoid the impression that after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there's been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January."
No mobile labs, no underground production facilities, old ordnance being destroyed, no-notice inspections, cooperation from the Iraqis - and above all else, no mention whatsoever of nukes. That really won't do, now will it? Not if you're bound and determined to invade Iraq and the facts be damned.
By the way, the quotes you cite from 1998 from various Democrats need to be placed into their proper context. That was the year Saddam stopped cooperating with the inspectors and kicked UNSCOM out. There was a lot of saber-rattling on both sides of the aisle in those days, but it was known then just as it is known now that most of Saddam's WMD arsenal had already been destroyed and that he was no longer a threat. Check out what Scott Ritter has to say about it sometime.
Regarding the 2002 quotes, you only prove the point I made earlier, that a number of Dems were just as deceived by BushCo as most of the rest of the country. Before you trot out the "but they had the same intelligence the Bush administration did" argument, let me point out that this is a complete fallacy. The NIEs that Congress saw were heavily edited, and they never saw any of the classified DIA stuff I cited previously.
Posted by Nicholas Couch on May 23, 2007 09:05 AMQuoting Sharon B: "Behind all the stated reasons is perhaps a reason we have to figure out ourselves."
When the "official story" just doesn't wash, we set about theorizing on just what the truth might be. At least that's what those of us who aren't still in denial over it do.
We know that every reason BushCo gave for invading Iraq before the invasion actually took place was false. I mean without exception, everything they told us was wrong. We've come to find out too that they KNEW what they were telling us was wrong. They may have wanted to believe in it heart and soul, but they knew better. When Rumsfeld said "we know he has WMD and we know where they are," he was lying. When Bush said the Iraqis were training al Qaeda, he was lying. When Cheney said Saddam had "definitely reconstituted his nuclear program," he was lying. And on and on...
So what indeed were the real reasons for invading Iraq, and moreover, for us still to be there over four years later? After all, it's been four years since Mission Accomplished, and if removing the threat that Saddam was supposed to be was the real mission, why are we still there?
BushCo have concocted justification after rationalization after misrepresentation post facto to account for our continued presence in and occupation of Iraq. They've time and time again fallen back on the "nobody expected..." excuse, which in a context of responsibility and accountability (like the third grade, for example) would have resulted long ago in a severe loss of privilege. In other words, they've continued to lie and get away with it.
Peak oil. Permanent military bases. Obscene oil company profits. Record gasoline prices for consumers. Global warming. Rampant corporatism. Those are the pieces of the puzzle. It's not hard to fit them together.
Mr. Crouch,
Bush's justification for invading Iraq was that Saddam had not complied with the treaty requirements. Blix continued to say that Saddam was begining to cooperate but, somehow compliance never seemed to materialize.
Bush gave Saddam months to satisfy Blix prior to the invasion. According to Blix he never did.
"Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision." Really? Started the destruction of what? I thought the WMD didn't exist.
Bush pointed out that Saddam had had more then enough time to comply with the UN and in the post 9/11 world his gamesmanship was no longer acceptable. That's not a lie.
You tell us that the congress was first hoodwinked by Bush but for some reason remained silent when Blix adduced the truth that Saddam had disarmed. Of course that's perposterous.
You tell us that the Clinton administration didn't really believe Saddam had WMD's. The missle attack on the "aspirin factory" was sabre rattling? To what purpose? That's equally perposterous.
But the perposterous has to be true or your fabrication comes undone.
There are plenty of kooks on this page who argue that Bush, or the Israeli's, were actually behind the 9/11 attack. Their nutty conspiracy theories are more plausible then your "Bush lied" fable.
They just make up history; you ignore it.
So it's all about the oil. And global warming of course.
So the terrorists are blowing up buses, shooting youg boys playing soccer and beheading truck drivers to keep control of their oil. And to keep he planet cool.
Of course, it so obvious the way you explain it.
But how does that tie in with murdering commuters in India? Or blowing up a wedding in Jordan?
Or, for that matter, flying airplanes into buildings in New York. We didn't have any troops in Iraq on 9/11.
Posted by James Jones on May 23, 2007 10:23 AM"Bush's justification for invading Iraq was that Saddam had not complied with the treaty requirements."
Nonsense. That's not what they told the American people, and the rest of the world. Saddam has WMD, Saddam has nukes, Saddam is in league with al Qaeda. That's what they told us. It was all wrong and they knew it was wrong.
"According to Blix he never did."
According to Blix the Iraqis were cooperating. What part of "we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq" and "there's been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side" don't you understand?
"I thought the WMD didn't exist."
There was legacy ordnance and they were cooperating in its destruction. There was no WMD program, no new development, and in fact no means to deliver the old ordnance at any rate. There was no threat.
"Bush pointed out that Saddam had had more then enough time to comply"
He was wrong on that point too. Blix pointed out that disarmament takes time, but the fact remains that Saddam was almost fully disarmed before UNMOVIC went there in 11/2002, and he was not developing new WMD.
"You tell us that the congress was first hoodwinked by Bush but for some reason remained silent when Blix adduced the truth that Saddam had disarmed."
Quite a few of them did not remain silent in March '03, as a matter of fact, but the authorization for the use of force had been given back in October '02, remember? So what's your point? That the Congress should have immediately withdrawn the authorization? Well, I couldn't agree more!
"The missle attack on the "aspirin factory" was sabre rattling?"
The Clinton administration believed the building in the Sudan to be a weapons factory linked to al Qaeda. They were wrong. I thought we were talking about Iraq.
N. Couch. Look at Bush himself. He is a religious man, so he believes in things. Anyone who wants to manipulate him would go to his "beliefs" and use his ability to have faith in the unproven.
He may have wanted to do something better then his father, fullfill that old saw about "going to Baghdad to finish the job"
Also, he had a personal grudge against Sadam, who tried to kill his father.
Someone, perhaps Cheney, knew the personality and quirks of this man, and figured out how to manipulate him into thinking the war would just go swimmingly.
The rest was easy. And since Bush can not admit to making mistakes, and will not apolopgize or change his mind, I wonder if the "planners" of the war ever regret starting this mess.
If they do regret it, they will just dig in harder to support it. Righteous anger always feels
better then sorrow over bad choices.
"So the terrorists are blowing up buses, shooting youg boys playing soccer and beheading truck drivers to keep control of their oil. And to keep he planet cool."
You're really specializing in missing the point today, James. The puzzle pieces I mentioned go together to form the picture of the reasons for our continued/permanent military presence in Iraq.
Posted by Nicholas Couch on May 23, 2007 10:49 AMMr. Couch,
Nonsense. That's not what they told the American people, and the rest of the world. Saddam has WMD, Saddam has nukes, Saddam is in league with al Qaeda. That's what they told us. It was all wrong and they knew it was wrong.
That's not true. This is the actual text from Bush's speech.
"Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."
Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring."
You exaggerate Bush's position. What he actually said was that the threat existed that could not be tolerated by ignoring a decade of gamesmanship and accepting promises of the future cooperation that somebody named Hans Blix assured us was forthcoming.
I am not an ardent bush supporter and am not convinced that invading Iraq was a good idea. The question of the invasion itself will be sorted out by the historians. The fact is that we are there and victory is now imperative. Advocating your hopless delusions hinder that battle.
I do not miss points. The difference between us is I am not blinded by Bush hatred. I look beyond the confines of your narrow band to understand the reality.
You simply set aside any fact or plain reality that contradicts what you wish to believe. For some odd reason, you want to believe that Bush lied and people died. And so you will.
You know what, James? You're full of crap. I've cited numerous examples of BushCo making public pre-invasion statements regarding the "threat" posed by Saddam's Iraq, and shown how those statements were known to be false when they were made. You've refuted not a single one of those points.
Now you cite a single speech made by Bush (which speech and when?) as if it were the only words spoken by BushCo on the subject, when of course that is not the case. But let's deal with that dishonest piece of rhetoric just the same. It starts out tying 9/11 to Iraq - he's talking about why we needed to invade Iraq - which is the theme they STILL return to time and time again. It is and was completely fraudulent, and they knew it.
What else? Oh, I love the "we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud" quote. Condi used that one too, didn't she? They all knew that Saddam didn't have nukes, James. This is fearmongering at its worst.
The Kennedy reference is cute, but it's a trick that only works on you if you don't know your history. The Cuban missile crisis was about a REAL threat. See, there were ACTUAL missiles in Cuba in 1962.
And then the punchline: "knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst." They didn't have to ASSUME anything. They had the intelligence, and it wasn't just Hans Blix and UNMOVIC.
"Advocating your hopless delusions hinder that battle."
I knew you'd get around to that sort of smear sooner or later. 'Cause in the end, it's all you've got.
Mr. Couch,
You have belatedy admitted that President Clinton and members of his administration thought that Saddam had WMD. You have told me that Bush learned that Saddam was disarmed and did not pose a threat when Blix made his findings known in the presentation Mr. Chandler cites.
That means that when Bush said Saddam had WMD prior to the Blix report, he was not lying but repeating what the previous administration thought.
So according to you it must have been the time period between the Blix report (3/7/03) and the invasion two weeks later (3/20/03) when Bush lied.
It seems to me you ought to be more precise in the future and claim that Bush lied (in the two weeks running up to the invasion but it was too late to stop things then even though the whole world knew Saddam had no WMD) and people died.
Leaving out that qualifying phrase creates a false impression.
The speech I quoted from was a national address made by Bush on the eve of the invasion (3/19/03). It's surprising that a man that has studied the events so carefully didn't recognize it.
It's also surprising that you are so invested in believing this fabrication. For you it's not sufficient that Bush was wrong - he must have lied. That makes him evil and you good. This looks a lot like sanctimony on stilts.
In the end all I have is the truth.
Posted by James Jones on May 23, 2007 04:22 PMJJ, and you have John II, don`t forget him.
I have never said Bush lied, just that there is another layer of reasons for the war. Something going on in Bushs mind that made him want to go to war with Iraq, no matter how he had to justify it.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 23, 2007 04:39 PMSharon B,
Good for you. That means we can have our disputes within the realm of reality.
I can't exlain Bush's thinking and I'm not particularly interested at this point. I know that we need to come together as a people, bringing our disputes along with us, and defeat the terrorists.
They are for real.
Posted by James Jones on May 23, 2007 04:58 PMWhat percentage of the "terrorists" are Muslims?
Posted by RickyLee on May 23, 2007 08:21 PM93
Posted by James Jones on May 23, 2007 09:38 PMJJ, don`t damn me with faint praise.
If we do not figure out why Bush wanted this war at all costs, what is to keep him (them) from another war. Maybe Iran is next.
My only hops is that Bush is so boxed in now that he can do little harm before he is out the door.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 24, 2007 11:03 AM