Dems thoughts on Iraq Pre Bush Administration......

[Aegon_Targaryen]

If you really believe that President BUSH lied – – THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ AND HE TOOK US TO WAR SOLELY FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES –then read this and, if you are the fair minded person that I believe you to be–, PASS IT ON TO YOUR ENTIRE E-MAIL LIST.

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“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 USA 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

“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 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

“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001




In other words Democrats,.....SHUT..........UP. This was a team decision. It was the wrong decision, and your chosen side was just as much to blame.

 

[73chief]

Unfortunately the individuals that still persist with the "Bush lied" narrative are simply incapable of being "fair minded". They are partisan zealots incapable of rational thought. Appreciate your effort though.

 

[nowalkin]

Unfortunately the individuals that still persist with the "Bush lied" narrative are simply incapable of being "fair minded". They are partisan zealots incapable of rational thought. Appreciate your effort though.

If you really believe that President BUSH lied – – THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ AND HE TOOK US TO WAR SOLELY FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES –then read this and, if you are the fair minded person that I believe you to be–, PASS IT ON TO YOUR ENTIRE E-MAIL LIST.

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“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 USA 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

“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 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

“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001




In other words Democrats,.....SHUT..........UP. This was a team decision. It was the wrong decision, and your chosen side was just as much to blame.

you need to understand the full context of the quotes you've added. Saying the Dems were pushing for war just as much as the Bush administration is not accurate at all.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

you need to understand the full context of the quotes you've added. Saying the Dems were pushing for war just as much as the Bush administration is not accurate at all.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

BS, and your article does nothing to change what was said. Some of the lengthened quotes, even have excerpts which simply argue the case that the Dems were just as involved. Saying "i'd rather handle it diplomatically", and then saying "make no mistake, he will use them again", is what it is.
What about the bombs he dropped on Iraq? Is that not an act of war? Quit making excuses.

Seriously read the article you linked, it doesn't change a thing.

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

"The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution . . .

But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard.

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.

Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too. . . .

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. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.-Bill Clinton 1998"

Notice the last sentence, he refers to the military leaders, not diplomats. ESPECIALLY notice the underlined part. Again, quit trying to making F'n excuses about this and wake the hell up. It's a team game, it always has been.

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

you need to understand the full context of the quotes you've added. Saying the Dems were pushing for war just as much as the Bush administration is not accurate at all.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

You need to also know that they didn't have the public support for it yet. They were slowly trying to get it, but it wasn't until 9-11 that they would finally have it.

Let's face it, at that time, we were ALL pissed at the Middle East.

 

[Habah]

Aegon, your gonna cause a full liberal meltdown over this.. Excellent work... Those are 100% facts..

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

Aegon, your gonna cause a full liberal meltdown over this.. Excellent work... Those are 100% facts..

Not likely, they'll just ignore it. Too bad for them.

 

[Lone Clone]

Not likely, they'll just ignore it. Too bad for them.

You're right, and the reason is pretty simple. It isn't enough that Bush made a decision that turned out to have negative ramifications. In their minds, he must be evil (as well as stupid). It simply doesn't fit their world view to accept that he may have made a mistake. And it's absolutely impossible for them to concede that others, presented with the same information, would come to the same conclusion Dubya did.

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

You're right, and the reason is pretty simple. It isn't enough that Bush made a decision that turned out to have negative ramifications. In their minds, he must be evil (as well as stupid). It simply doesn't fit their world view to accept that he may have made a mistake. And it's absolutely impossible for them to concede that others, presented with the same information, would come to the same conclusion Dubya did.

The problem is that many people wanted this war for various reasons. Eventually 9-11 got the public angered enough that close to the majority of Americans wanted us to go over there.

The Dems act as if there party is one of peace and anti-war. Their history is just as war torn as the GOPs history is. Like I've said before, it's a team game.

 

[txhawk I]

Why read them when you can watch and listen to them.

 

[txhawk I]

Even better.

 

[aflachawk]

You're right, and the reason is pretty simple. It isn't enough that Bush made a decision that turned out to have negative ramifications. In their minds, he must be evil (as well as stupid). It simply doesn't fit their world view to accept that he may have made a mistake. And it's absolutely impossible for them to concede that others, presented with the same information, would come to the same conclusion Dubya did.

You have put your finger on one of the big differences between libs and con. Cons think libs ideas are wrong, libs think cons are not merely wrong but evil. That gives them license to call people names over policy disagreements

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Oh great, another stupid email

Yes, yes, we get it. There are evil neocons in the Dem party, too.

Since nobody has been denying that too many Dems were just as stupid and just as wrong as Team Bush, what's the point of this email, or posting it here?

My favorite quote from this email?

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Palaces for his cronies? Palaces for his cronies?

Oh, the humanity! Must kill a million Iraqis to prevent that. Totally justified.

Hey! At least the part about palaces was true.

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

The Libs think you can naively 'nicely force' the world into being paradise, the Cons think you have to 'not so nicely force' the world into being a paradise.

Basically, the libs think you can just

Oh great, another stupid email

Yes, yes, we get it. There are evil neocons in the Dem party, too.

Since nobody has been denying that too many Dems were just as stupid and just as wrong as Team Bush, what's the point of this email, or posting it here?

My favorite quote from this email?

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Palaces for his cronies? Palaces for his cronies?

Oh, the humanity! Must kill a million Iraqis to prevent that. Totally justified.

Hey! At least the part about palaces was true.

Any reason this makes you so mad? You sure weren't minding the thread about the GOPs involvement. True colors showing......

 

[h-hawk]

It is amazing how clueless many people still are about 9/11 and Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 though the Bush Jr administration carefully planted that thought into millions of minds by mentioning Iraq every time they talked about terrorism. Bush senior had the correct idea - contain and control Iraq. It was working too until his bozo son and Cheney got elected. The Middle East has been a disaster area ever since.
Now there are more (mostly) Republicans that want us to spend even more lives and money on the mess over there. Those countries have their own armies - when it threatens them they will finally get off their asses and do something or they too will cease to exist.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Any reason this makes you so mad? You sure weren't minding the thread about the GOPs involvement. True colors showing......

Yes. And you should be mad, too - not promoting it.

The short version goes this way....

We aren't saying "Team Clinton made similar comments and we should condemn them, too." That would be reasonable. Instead we are saying "Team Clinton made similar comments, therefore liberals have no right to be critical of Team Bush." Which is both a non sequitur and really stupid.

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

Yes. And you should be mad, too - not promoting it.

The short version goes this way....

We aren't saying "Team Clinton made similar comments and we should condemn them, too." That would be reasonable. Instead we are saying "Team Clinton made similar comments, therefore liberals have no right to be critical of Team Bush." Which is both a non sequitur and really stupid.

No, it means you need to address the entire problem, not just the portion that fits your narrative. Do you solve a full equation with only half the solution?

 

[joelbc1]

If you really believe that President BUSH lied – – THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ AND HE TOOK US TO WAR SOLELY FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES –then read this and, if you are the fair minded person that I believe you to be–, PASS IT ON TO YOUR ENTIRE E-MAIL LIST.

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“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 USA 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

“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 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

“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001




In other words Democrats,.....SHUT..........UP. This was a team decision. It was the wrong decision, and your chosen side was just as much to blame.

Bush was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq and dump Saddam from day #1. Paul O'Neill, an original cabinet member of Junior's has documented this. He talks about the fist full cabinet meeting of Junior's administration...in Feb of '01, he assigned several cabinet members to research ways for the US to invade Iraq. This is well documented in his book, "The Price of Loyalty" released in 2004. O'Neill resigned Bush's cabinet in 2002, partially because of this action.

 

[lucas80]

I didn't see a single quote where it was recommended that the US go into Iraq like a bull in a china shop with no plan for what happens afterwards. I see a lot of quotes noting that Saddam Hussein was a bad person. He was. That isn't up for debate. I see quotes suggesting air or missile strikes, not an invasion with hundreds of thousands troops poured into the region.

 

[phantom_204]

Saddam was a bad person, there is no question. Did we need to keep him in check, absolutely. Did we need to invade Iraq and remove him from power, which was going to predictably going to create a power vacuum? No. It was a mistake. What has happened in Iraq since then was predictable.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Aegon, your gonna cause a full liberal meltdown over this.. Excellent work... Those are 100% facts..

LOL...you're kidding, right? Show where ONE of those quoted was advocating for an invasion. You want f'n quotes? How about THESE quotes?

"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."

That's Colin Powell...in February of 2001...when he was the bush admin Secretary of State...talking about the policies all those Dems you quoted were supporting. And he says THEY WERE WORKING AND SADDAM HAD NO SIGNIFICANT CAPABILITY WITH WMD's.

You want more? How about this:

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

That's Condoleeza Rice...in July of 2001...AGAIN supporting sanctions. Those same sanctions the Dems quoted were supporting. AND SHE SAYS THEY'RE WORKING.

Several months later we get 9/11 - an event with ZERO connection to Iraq - and suddenly Saddam is an existential threat to the United States. Such a threat that we MUST invade. The guy who wasn't a threat to his neighbors according to THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION is suddenly a threat to the most powerful nation in the world.

Spare me your "victory dance"...this thread is idiotic.

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

Bush was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq and dump Saddam from day #1. Paul O'Neill, an original cabinet member of Junior's has documented this. He talks about the fist full cabinet meeting of Junior's administration...in Feb of '01, he assigned several cabinet members to research ways for the US to invade Iraq. This is well documented in his book, "The Price of Loyalty" released in 2004. O'Neill resigned Bush's cabinet in 2002, partially because of this action.

Apparently so was the administration before his.

LOL...you're kidding, right? Show where ONE of those quoted was advocating for an invasion. You want f'n quotes? How about THESE quotes?

"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."

That's Colin Powell...in February of 2001...when he was the bush admin Secretary of State...talking about the policies all those Dems you quoted were supporting. And he says THEY WERE WORKING AND SADDAM HAD NO SIGNIFICANT CAPABILITY WITH WMD's.

You want more? How about this:

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

That's Condoleeza Rice...in July of 2001...AGAIN supporting sanctions. Those same sanctions the Dems quoted were supporting. AND SHE SAYS THEY'RE WORKING.

Several months later we get 9/11 - an event with ZERO connection to Iraq - and suddenly Saddam is an existential threat to the United States. Such a threat that we MUST invade. The guy who wasn't a threat to his neighbors according to THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION is suddenly a threat to the most powerful nation in the world.

Spare me your "victory dance"...this thread is idiotic.

This thread is not idiotic and only a lying, in denial moron would think that. If you simply aren't accustomed to how history goes then that is on you. This push from the Clinton Administration was anything but diplomatic. HIS administration was the one saying that they had WMD's and that they had NO DOUBT. HIS administration is the one that put forth the Iraqi Liberation Act, which was the outline used, and called for the removal of arms by any means
HIS administration is the one that ordered bombs to be dropped on Iraq. To sit here and act as if your precious little Democrats weren't in on this the entire time is ridiculously stupid.
It is exactly why the country has it's issues, because people like you refuse to believe the truth, even when it's right in their F'N face.
You act as if your Democratic morons were lied to, and duped into this. Yet the F'N information about the WMD's came from Clintons Administration for yodas sake. How far in denial can you take this?

 

[phantom_204]

There is a a big difference in dropping missles to degrade and make sure Saddam didn't develop the capabilities to attack other countries and invading Iraq to overthrow the government. It was Powell who warned before invading Iraq, that Iraq was like a vase ... once you break it (by invading it), you owned it. I don't think by owning it, he meant blaming the next guy for it being no longer held together with tape.

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

There is a a big difference in dropping missles to degrade and make sure Saddam didn't develop the capabilities to attack other countries and invading Iraq to overthrow the government. It was Powell who warned before invading Iraq, that Iraq was like a vase ... once you break it (by invading it), you owned it. I don't think by owning it, he meant blaming the next guy for it being no longer held together with tape.

Getting into Iraq is what the CFR has wanted for some time now. Dropping those bombs was nothing more than a warning, that we knew wouldn't take. Iraq strategic placement just so happens to be on the border of another country that has been on our radar for decades now.
Make no mistake the entire point of getting involved over there is far more than just the worry of WMD's. It was coming one way or the other, and the administrations for decades now have been making a point to get us involved over there.
It doesn't matter whether they run under the red or blue aisle, that's practically meaningless to these people. That's just for show, that's just to compete for who gets to actually manage the operations. Nothing more, in the end the money gets what it wants.
The problem is that you are up against people of power who have much more ambition and scope of accomplishment than many would like to believe.
Obamas administration has been FULL of moves in the Middle East despite the talk that he's trying to back away from it. BS.

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

I didn't see a single quote where it was recommended that the US go into Iraq like a bull in a china shop with no plan for what happens afterwards. I see a lot of quotes noting that Saddam Hussein was a bad person. He was. That isn't up for debate. I see quotes suggesting air or missile strikes, not an invasion with hundreds of thousands troops poured into the region.

When does government ever spell anything out for you Lucas? Think of the 'seriousness' of what they are saying. They aren't feigning over some tiny threat, the DEMS were claiming the use of WMD's being a certainty in time.
Translated: Saddam CAN and WILL kill lots of people with powerful weapons unless we stop him. Did you really think that military forces was NEVER in mind with Clintons Administration? Come on now, that's just being naïve.
You act as if Democrats are incapable of warfare,...Vietnam anyone? How pointless was that one? For Yodas sake, they had to draft people into that one.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You act as if your Democratic morons were lied to, and duped into this. Yet the F'N information about the WMD's came from Clintons Administration for yodas sake. How far in denial can you take this?

Then it should be a simple matter for you to find one single quote pre-bush advocating a boots-on-the-ground invasion. Just one. Should be a simple thing. You can do this easily...right? If - as you seem to believe - they were on the same page as bush, they should have been advocating HIS solution prior to him pushing for it. Let's see it or you admit that this thread is complete and total BS.

I'll wait.

BTW, I noticed that you completely ignored the pre-9/11 stance of the bush admin. Why was that? It's history staring you in the face...right?

 

[LifelongHawk]

Bush got everybody on board at a secret meeting in Prague.

Cheney accurately predicted virtually all of the Iraq negative fallout as SecDef when H.W. ended first gulf war. But the only goal of the invasion for him was achieved gloriously, seen the price of oil and who controls it?

 

[Lone Clone]

Then it should be a simple matter for you to find one single quote pre-bush advocating a boots-on-the-ground invasion. Just one. Should be a simple thing. You can do this easily...right? If - as you seem to believe - they were on the same page as bush, they should have been advocating HIS solution prior to him pushing for it. Let's see it or you admit that this thread is complete and total BS.

I'll wait.

BTW, I noticed that you completely ignored the pre-9/11 stance of the bush admin. Why was that? It's history staring you in the face...right?

You are, perhaps unintentionally, wandering off the track here, I think.

There are two issues.

One, which I think is the original one in this thread, is whether the Bushies lied about WMD and were the only ones who thought WMD were a problem.

The other is who wanted to do what about the WMD.

In the first case, anybody who continues to deny that the overwhelming majority of experts, politicians, etc., in the US and allied countries believed Saddam posed a threat with WMD simply is being dishonest or is woefully uninformed.

In the second case, there is no doubt that a significant number of people, most of them Democrats, who believed Saddam posed a WMD threat were reluctant to invade Iraq. Even those who voted to authorize the invasion didn't really want to do it -- Tom Harkin is one example. He did it for political coverage, and was not alone in his party.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You are, perhaps unintentionally, wandering off the track here, I think.

There are two issues.

One, which I think is the original one in this thread, is whether the Bushies lied about WMD and were the only ones who thought WMD were a problem.

The other is who wanted to do what about the WMD.

In the first case, anybody who continues to deny that the overwhelming majority of experts, politicians, etc., in the US and allied countries believed Saddam posed a threat with WMD simply is being dishonest or is woefully uninformed.

In the second case, there is no doubt that a significant number of people, most of them Democrats, who believed Saddam posed a WMD threat were reluctant to invade Iraq. Even those who voted to authorize the invasion didn't really want to do it -- Tom Harkin is one example. He did it for political coverage, and was not alone in his party.

I agree LC. But the fact is that the bush admin DID lie in their presentation of the evidence. We have discussed the aluminum tubes here previously. Their claim was that they "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs" when they KNEW that wasn't true.They had known for a year that that claim was false. Every centrifuge expert consulted - Every. Single. One. - said those tubes were NOT suited for centrifuges. The DoE, the department of the US govt responsible for building centrifuges, said they were more likely for rockets. To cast their claim as anything BUT a lie is to be a liar.

Their lies by omission are legion.

 

[Lone Clone]

I agree LC. But the fact is that the bush admin DID lie in their presentation of the evidence. We have discussed the aluminum tubes here previously. Their claim was that they "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs" when they KNEW that wasn't true.They had known for a year that that claim was false. Every centrifuge expert consulted - Every. Single. One. - said those tubes were NOT suited for centrifuges. The DoE, the department of the US govt responsible for building centrifuges, said they were more likely for rockets. To cast their claim as anything BUT a lie is to be a liar.

Their lies by omission are legion.

Which topic are you discussing now? Just so we're both on the same page. I get tired of trying to chase you around the bushes (no pun intended).

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Which topic are you discussing now? Just so we're both on the same page. I get tired of trying to chase you around the bushes.

Not sure why you're having an issue...it was a direct repsonse to your post:

One, which I think is the original one in this thread, is whether the Bushies lied about WMD and were the only ones who thought WMD were a problem.

They lied. The info they presented concerning the aluminum tubes was a lie. They lied. Period.

The second part of that statement has already been dealt with. Prior to 9/11, the bush administration didn't think WMD's were a problem. They said so. You have their statements to that effect. And they acknowledged that the sanctions had been successful in preventing Saddam from "breaking out".

So...maybe...all that talk pre-bush about WMD's was hyperbole intended to keep the sanctions - which were working - in place. What we do know as an absolute certainty is that IF they did see Iraqi WMD's as a problem, they didn't view them as being enough of a problem to warrant a full-scale invasion. That is 100% on the bush administration. Period.

Is that path through your bushes clear enough?

 

[Lone Clone]

Not sure why you're having an issue...it was a direct repsonse to your post:

One, which I think is the original one in this thread, is whether the Bushies lied about WMD and were the only ones who thought WMD were a problem.

They lied. The info they presented concerning the aluminum tubes was a lie. They lied. Period.

The second part of that statement has already been dealt with. Prior to 9/11, the bush administration didn't think WMD's were a problem. They said so. You have their statements to that effect. And they acknowledged that the sanctions had been successful in preventing Saddam from "breaking out".

So...maybe...all that talk pre-bush about WMD's was hyperbole intended to keep the sanctions - which were working - in place. What we do know as an absolute certainty is that IF they did see Iraqi WMD's as a problem, they didn't view them as being enough of a problem to warrant a full-scale invasion. That is 100% on the bush administration. Period.

Is that path through your bushes clear enough?

Did they lie? Powell made it clear in his speech to the UN that there were disagreements about whether the tubes were intended for use in a centrifuge, and made the argument that they were. Is that what you consider a lie?

IIRC, the CIA and foreign source, including the French intelligence folks, thought the tubes were intended for centrifuges.

And as for it being 100% on the Bush administration -- yet another attempt to deflect from the point, which is that Democrats were on board with the decision.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Did they lie? Powell made it clear in his speech to the UN that there were disagreements about whether the tubes were intended for use in a centrifuge, and made the argument that they were. Is that what you consider a lie?

IIRC, the CIA and foreign source, including the French intelligence folks, thought the tubes were intended for centrifuges.

And as for it being 100% on the Bush administration -- yet another attempt to deflect from the point, which is that Democrats were on board with the decision.

When you claim, as Rice did, they are "only really suited for centrifuge programs" you're not really qualifying your answer. And when you say, as Powell did, that "Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Other experts, and the Iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher", you're pretty much dismissing the opinions of every single centrifuge expert who weighed in on the issue...and you're putting your thumb in the eye of your own administration's centrifuge experts. Is that what passes for clarity with you?

Your CIA source was Joe Turner, an engineer who never worked on a centrifuge design in his life. There was no one else. He distinguished himself by having his case torn to shreds by the IAEA and coming back claiming they bought his theory. The IAEA sent the administration a report detailing why Turner's claims were suspect but that report...well, we have no idea what happened to that.

So you will call it what you will...but they lied.

Now...as for your last attempt to deflect blame...the invasion was bush's idea and was voted DOWN by the Democrats in the House. You can try to somehow spin that as being "on board" but that would be a lie. You wouldn't want to do that, would you?

 

[Vroom_C14]

The Democrats who voted to support the war and rationalized that vote by making false claims about Iraq's WMD programs - a minority of Democrats, but much over-represented in Democratic leadership councils - were responsible for allowing the Bush administration to get away with lying about Iraq's alleged threat.

Here on the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War, it is important to remember that it was not just those in the Bush White House who were responsible for the tragedy, but leading members of Congress as well, some of whom are now in senior positions in the Obama administration. The 4,500 Americans killed, the far larger number permanently wounded, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and millions displaced, the trillion dollars of US taxpayers' money squandered (and the resulting cutbacks through sequestration), the continued costs of the war through veterans' benefits and interest on the national debt, and the anti-American extremism in reaction to the invasion and occupation which has spread throughout much of the world all could have been avoided if the Democratic-controlled Senate hadn't voted to authorize this illegal and unnecessary war and occupation.

the tragic consequences of a US invasion of Iraq and a refutation of falsehoods being put forward by the Bush administration to justify it were made available to every member of the House and Senate (see, for example, my cover story in The Nation magazine The Case Against a War with Iraq). The 2003 vote authorizing the invasion was not like the vote on the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution on the use of force against North Vietnam, for which Congress had no time for hearings or debate and for which most of those supporting it (mistakenly) thought they were simply authorizing limited short-term retaliatory strikes in response to a specific series of alleged incidents. By contrast, in regard to the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, Congress had many months to investigate and debate the administration's claims that Iraq was a threat as well as the likely implications of a US invasion. Members of Congress also fully recognized that the resolution authorized a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation and a subsequent military occupation of an indefinite period.
The House and Senate members who now claim they were "misled" about Iraq's alleged military threat have failed to explain why they found the administration's claims so much more convincing than the many other reports made available to them from more objective sources that presumably made a much stronger case that Iraq no longer had offensive WMD capability. Curiously, not a single member of Congress has agreed to allow me any access to any documents they claim convinced them of the alleged Iraqi threat except for one excerpt from a 2002 National Security Estimate released in July 2003 - widely ridiculed at the time for its transparently manipulated content. In effect, they are using the infamous Nixon defense from the Watergate scandal that claims that while they have evidence to vindicate themselves, making it public would somehow damage national security. In reality, if such reports actually exist, they are clearly inaccurate and outdated and would therefore be of no threat to national security if made public.

Democrats' Responsibility

The Democrats who voted to support the war and rationalized that vote by making false claims about Iraq's WMD programs were responsible for allowing the Bush administration to get away with lying about Iraq's alleged threat. For example, Bush was able to note how "more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate - who had access to the same intelligence - voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power." In a 2005 speech attacking anti-war activists, Bush noted how, "Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.'"

Indeed, the fact that 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry chose to make such demonstrably false statements and voted in favor of the resolution likely cost the Democrats the White House since it led many potential supporters, myself included, to refuse to vote for him. Furthermore, because of Kerry's vote in support for the war and his false claims about Iraq's weapons capabilities, the debate during the fall campaign was not about who was right about Iraq (since they were both wrong), but Kerry's alleged "flip-flopping" for belatedly raising questions about the conduct of the war.

Kerry was not alone in rushing to the defense of the Bush administration. Despite serious doubts being raised by arms control specialists, including some within the US government, about Iraq having proscribed weapons and a series of articles in academic journals, daily newspapers and elsewhere disputing the administration's claims, Senator Hillary Clinton, in justification of her vote to authorize the invasion, falsely insisted that Iraq's possession of such weapons was "not in doubt" and was "undisputed." Despite her lies, Obama named her his first secretary of State.

Similarly, Senator Joe Biden, then head of the Senate foreign Relations Committee, falsely claimed that Iraq under Saddam Hussein - severely weakened by UN disarmament efforts and comprehensive international sanctions - somehow constituted both "a long-term threat and a short-term threat to our national security" and was an "extreme danger to the world." Despite the absence in Iraq of any "weapons of mass destruction" or offensive military capabilities, Biden - when reminded of those remarks during an interview in 2007 - replied, "That's right, and I was correct about that."

In his powerful position as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden orchestrated a propaganda show designed to sell the war to skeptical colleagues and the American public by ensuring that dissenting voices would not get a fair hearing. Biden refused to even allow testimony from former UN inspectors like Scott Ritter - who knew more about Iraq's WMD capabilities than anyone and would have testified that Iraq had achieved at least qualitative disarmament. Ironically, on Meet the Press in 2007, Biden defended his false claims about Iraqi WMDs by falsely insisting that "everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them." Biden also refused to honor requests by some of his Democratic colleagues to include some of the leading anti-war scholars familiar with Iraq and the Middle East in the hearings. These included both those who would have reiterated Ritter's conclusions about nonexistent Iraqi WMD capabilities as well as those prepared to testify that a US invasion of Iraq would likely set back the struggle against al-Qaeda, alienate the United States from much of the world and precipitate bloody urban counter-insurgency warfare amid rising terrorism, Islamist extremism, and sectarian violence. All of these predictions ended up being exactly what transpired. Nor did Biden even call some of the dissenting officials in the Pentagon or State Department who were willing to challenge the alarmist claims of their ideologically-driven superiors. He was willing, however, to allow Iraqi defectors with highly dubious credentials to make false testimony about the vast quantities of WMD materiel supposedly in Saddam Hussein's possession. Ritter has correctly accused Biden of having "preordained a conclusion that seeks to remove Saddam Hussein from power regardless of the facts and ... using these hearings to provide political cover for a massive military attack on Iraq."

Despite all this, Obama made Biden his pick for vice president.

 

[strummingram]

I'm just glad we only have the two parties. They're doing a stellar job.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

We'll never have more than two parties long-term. Our system isn't set up to operate with multiple parties. If that's what we want, we have to rewrite the Constitution and go back to a parliamentary system of govt.

 

[strummingram]

We'll never have more than two parties long-term. Our system isn't set up to operate with multiple parties. If that's what we want, we have to rewrite the Constitution and go back to a parliamentary system of govt.

Where is it written in the Constitution that we only get two parties?

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

Then it should be a simple matter for you to find one single quote pre-bush advocating a boots-on-the-ground invasion. Just one. Should be a simple thing. You can do this easily...right? If - as you seem to believe - they were on the same page as bush, they should have been advocating HIS solution prior to him pushing for it. Let's see it or you admit that this thread is complete and total BS.

I'll wait.

BTW, I noticed that you completely ignored the pre-9/11 stance of the bush admin. Why was that? It's history staring you in the face...right?

You think I'm defending Bush don't you,.....tsk tsk

 

[nowalkin]

Here's the Republican narrative in a nutshell:
1) Dems are pussies, sometimes you need to go to war to make shit happen. 2) Dems wanted this war just as badly as Bush did (but they're still pussies). 3) This is now all Obamas fault, even though George Bush took us to war in the first place.

Let's make sure we look at some facts:
Of the 132 congressmen that voted against the Iraq war, 6 were Republicans. Of the 23 Senators that voted against the war, 1 was a Republican. Don't try and share the blame on this one.