Proof that Bush lied!

[peptoabysmal]

That's what I am seeking here... proof. Explain to me how Pres. B. Clinton, the U.N. and Pres. G.W. Bush were all involved in this conspiracy to lie about WMD. Explain what was the U.N. doing in Iraq when supposedly looking for WMD?

Prove that Bush lied or change your story to the correct version which is: "The intelligence was flawed" or expect to be challenged on the ridiculous assertion that "Bush lied" whenever it is used.

The Democrats deeply deranged by anti-Bush fever insist on making the most damning - and implausible - charge possible: that Bush willfully lied to the American people about Iraq.

As I've tried to demonstrate in this space before, the idea that the president lied to the American people hinges on - at least - one almost impossible fact: that George W. Bush knew for a certainty that the intelligence agencies of America, Britain, France, Germany, Israel, Australia, as well as the United Nations and countless independent experts were all wrong.

Straightforwardness would defuse WMD issue

 

[a_unique_person]

Your argument fails instantly.

The UN was still actively investigating the WMD question, as it had not turned up any evidence they existed, and was still investigating the issue. They wanted more time to conclusively prove the issue either way. They were right. An ex Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, a conservative, has stated part of the reason for the war to start when it did was that if Blix was allowed to complete the investigation, then the main pretext for the war was lost.

The head of the IAEA was saying there was no evidence of development of nuclear weapons, and was roundly condemned for doing so. He was right.

'Axis of Deciet' by Andrew Wilkie, and Australian, details the way that the intelligence community was manipulated by the conservative government. An assesment that 'X could possibly be Y' would be changed to say that "X is Y". Qualified statements by professionals were routinely changed to absolutes.

Andrew Wilkie actually resigned from the Intelligence agency he worked for before the war, saying that the war was being started on false pretences, the 'evidence' for WMD was incomplete at best, and in no way indicated a threat to the west or anyone else. He was right. Here is an interview with him, before the war started.

The only thing he got wrong was that he thought there must have been something there. He was absolutely correct about the ability of Iraq to threaten being non-existent.

What he does say is that the US and Australia had been committed to the war from about the middle of 2002. Once set in motion, the march to war was not going to be stopped.

http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/All/01A33C10272BF7A2CA256CE500837A10

Remember what the war was about? It was about the war on terror.

What is the basis of his conviction that Iraq does not pose a serious enough threat to justify a war? “Their military is very weak. It’s a fraction of the size it was when it invaded Kuwait in 1990. Most of what remains is poorly trained, poorly equipped and of questionable loyalty to the regime. Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program is, I believe, genuinely contained. There is no doubt they have chemical and biological weapons, but their program now is disjointed and limited. It’s not a national WMD program like they used to have. Also, I am not convinced that Iraq is actively co-operating with al Qaeda. The bottom line is that this war against Iraq is totally unrelated to the war on terror.”

....

And then there is his “bad-policy” argument. “War must be the last resort. There is still scope to improve the inspections, to re-engineer the sanctions, and to develop inducements to Iraq to come into line. Also, it’s eroding the power and standing of the UN. We can’t afford that. There has to be some way for the international community to act collectively. And it’s even more important as the US continues its ascendancy. The US is not more important than the UN, nor are US values superior to the values of other nations.”

Another Australian Intelligence community member, actually tried to go to visit the Prime Minister, John Howard, personally, to tell him the evidence for WMD was not right. He, too, was right.

Dr David Kelly, of Great Britain, was a part of the UN inspection team in Iraq. He failed to provide the required answers on WMD, and paid the price. I am sure others in the intelligence community got the message. Don't rock the boat, tell the boss what he wants to hear.

 

[SezMe]

Prove that Bush lied or change your story to the correct version which is: "The intelligence was flawed" or expect to be challenged on the ridiculous assertion that "Bush lied" whenever it is used.

False dichotomy.

First, I think it would be impossible to "prove" Bush lied. Proof does not exist in political matters. Well, rarely.

But your alternative is not the only one. Try this: The Bush Administration had a documented prediliction for invading Iraq. After 911, it became possible to achieve this goal by various means. One was the selective use of supportive information. Another was to ignore (or worse) dissenting opinion. Through the use of such means, the objective was achieved.

In other words, Bush did not lie and the intelligence was not necessarily flawed. But we're still at war. So my return challenge to you is: Prove (using your word) that the Bush Administration used "every possible means" (I think those are the words) cited in the congressional authorization to find an alternative to invasion. And (this part is easier) show on what date the Bush Administration went back to congress for final approval (as required by the authorizing legislation) before commencing military action. Hint: they didn't.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

If you Bushites need solid proof that your feurher had an agenda and is sticking to it, forget it. There is no proof. Karl Rove made sure that everyone involved has clean hands.

Get over it. You man won and we all will pay dearly for for it ...

Charlie (I pray to my atheist deity that evangelicals will soon see the light) Monoxide

 

[fishbob]

Pepto:

Prove that Bush lied or change your story to the correct version which is: "The intelligence was flawed" or expect to be challenged on the ridiculous assertion that "Bush lied" whenever it is used.

Spinning hard to the right. Substitute 'deliberately misled' for 'lied'. Does that make you feel better?

Proof? Nah, I'm just gonna keep in mind the Bush characteristics of ignoring dissenting views, surrounding himself with toadies and yes-men, and arrogance. And the inability to do math.

 

[hgc]

It doesn't matter what the UN and Clinton thought. Out of all of them, Bush, alone, made the decision to launch a war. Bush is responsible for the consequences of that disastrous decision. Maybe Clinton thought that Saddam had WMD, but he sure didn't think it was a "grave and gathering danger," otherwise he would have started this war. And, um, who was right about that?

Ah, so much for personal responsibility. Everyone has it except the hypicrites screaming loudest about it.

 

[Crossbow]

That's what I am seeking here... proof. Explain to me how Pres. B. Clinton, the U.N. and Pres. G.W. Bush were all involved in this conspiracy to lie about WMD. Explain what was the U.N. doing in Iraq when supposedly looking for WMD?

Prove that Bush lied or change your story to the correct version which is: "The intelligence was flawed" or expect to be challenged on the ridiculous assertion that "Bush lied" whenever it is used.


Straightforwardness would defuse WMD issue

Um, no thanks!

I choose to decline this challange since the pro-war Bush lovers often end up saying something like "Well, since Bush was not actually under oath when he said this, that, and the other, it is not really a lie." regardless of the facts presented.

 

[The idea]

Does anyone say, "Bush lied. He said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I believed that. On that basis, I was willing to accept the invasion of Iraq"?

France has weapons of mass destruction, so are you willing to accept the invasion of France?

If you say that whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction is a pivotal issue that makes the invasion of Iraq either justifiable or unjustifiable, then aren't you already saying that there was something seriously wrong with the government that Iraq had?

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Well dark helmets your semi-correct, but as I have said in the past in Re GII it was a shell game involving plausibility. I am going to keep a series of articles that point out the duplicitous nature of lil' Gorges transgressions and every time someone tries to cleanse the stained reality of one of the worst white house administrations will post it anon.

To wit:"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction"
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
George W. Bush
Speech to U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
George W. Bush
State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
Colin Powell
Remarks to U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
George W. Bush
Radio Address, Feb. 8, 2003

"So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad?... I think our judgment has to be clearly not."
Colin Powell
Remarks to U.N. Security Council, March 7, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing, March 21, 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And... as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference, March 22, 2003

"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction."
Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
The Washington Post, Page A27, March 23, 2003

"One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites."
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing, March 22, 2003

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview, March 30, 2003

"Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty."
Neo-con scholar Robert Kagan
The Washington Post op-ed, Apr. 9, 2003

"I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found."
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing, Apr. 10, 2003

"We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them."
George W. Bush
NBC Interview, Apr. 24, 2003

"There are people who in large measure have information that we need... so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country."
Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing, Apr. 25, 2003

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."
George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters, May 3, 2003

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."
Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters, May 4, 2003

"We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country."
Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview, May 4, 2003

"I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program."
George W. Bush

Remarks to Reporters, May 6, 2003

"U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction."
Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview, May 12, 2003

"I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden."
Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing, May 13, 2003

"Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found."
Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters, May 21, 2003

"Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction."
Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview, May 26, 2003

"They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer."
Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz"
Vanity Fair interview, May 28, 2003

"It was a surprise to me then -- it remains a surprise to me now -- that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview, May 30, 2003

Many thanks for Demon's data mining.

My own post:
If it seems that there have been quite a few rationales for going to war in Iraq, that’s because there have been quite a few - 27, in fact, all floated between Sept. 12, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002, according to a new study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
<http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html>

I will refine my examples as time goes on.

Your embrace and defence of President Stoopithead is a sword and shield to protect You from the truth that your god is a fallen , no that's not right , a hollow idol and You perceive that reality to be an threat to your worldview. Well sir it is long past time to re-examine your core beliefs. I find that a person who is confronted by reality which is dis-commodious to their view and in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence , who will not give up their fallacious grasp, to be a character flaw.

Meanwhile, "Out damn spot!"

 

[merphie]

Well dark helmets your semi-correct, but as I have said in the past in Re GII it was a shell game involving plausibility. I am going to keep a series of articles that point out the duplicitous nature of lil' Gorges transgressions and every time someone tries to cleanse the stained reality of one of the worst white house administrations will post it anon.

snip

Many thanks for Demon's data mining.

My own post:
If it seems that there have been quite a few rationales for going to war in Iraq, that’s because there have been quite a few - 27, in fact, all floated between Sept. 12, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002, according to a new study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
<http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html>

I will refine my examples as time goes on.

Your embrace and defence of President Stoopithead is a sword and shield to protect You from the truth that your god is a fallen , no that's not right , a hollow idol and You perceive that reality to be an threat to your worldview. Well sir it is long past time to re-examine your core beliefs. I find that a person who is confronted by reality which is dis-commodious to their view and in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence , who will not give up their fallacious grasp, to be a character flaw.

Meanwhile, "Out damn spot!"

Is your analysis based on the information we had at the time or the information we have now?

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

It was based on contemporaneous postings(my own ).
I have stated that I and many here had posts that nailed the situation and it's consequences. I don't like to quote myself but if You would like proof , I can provide links and text (as many boards don't preserve many years worth of posts) I preserve all posts as a matter of form as they are occasionally needed to correct misquotes and fabrications. Of course without any interrogatives or answers to said posts , there is a problem of context.

edit ... an example:
Ok I think George Bush is a freaking idiot. I'm not sure we have a democracy anymore it looks more and more every day like an Oligarcy. I disagreed with going to war.

If we consider the realpolitik of the situation that lead to our allies Germany, France and Russia not going to war the reasons are clearer than any claim of humanitarian concern that any of those countries raised.

Russia, with billions of dollars owed it from Iraq and the prospect of billions more in contracts for the oil and power industries Russa would ( and did ) lose a LOT of hard currency, the one thing it needs most as a fledgling democracy.

Germany, Gerhard Schröder had an increasingly dim future for both his government and his party and with regional elections imminent he had to adhere to the popular will to assure personal and policy longevity. To get a grasp of the back ground see the link , thier politics make the Machiavellian plots of the Borgas' look like the pecking order of a 5th grade girls club.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jul2001/germ-j27.shtml

AND then there's Phrance, Ahh the Phrench, the inventors of diplomacy and the force frappe', still ripe with illusions of goepolitical relevance, which they have a second, no third, no , heck I lost count..have a shot at again because the EU is now a reality. Thus shall Pffrance take her rightful station as leader of a coalition of nations larger then the United States...blablabla. The duplicitous self serving Phrench. Skeptic and I have a pretty divergent opinion about most things politic but his quote "But I guess you're right: the USA will have to fight its future wars without the support of France... which is a bit like having to go hunt deer without your accordion." if I were just a creature of politics would deserve signature status.

There is one more thing I agree with him on. Before the stupid , uncalled for war started, I posted that those who did not take part should be excluded from any effort to rebuild after the fighting. I invoked ( for the mentally challenged ) the fable of the little red hen , the one who asked for help at all stages of baking a loaf of bread and was refused, but when the task was accomplished all sought to avail themselves, and the hen said " kiss my ass". Act like children someone said? You must realize that political choices that a democracy has the luxury of making has consequences political, monetary or others. The fact that those respective countries chose to exclude themselves from a rushed war is thier right, but now after billions of American dollars and countless American and other lives you whine about not being cut into a deal financed by the American people? Act like children? See the hen's response above.

One more thing , someone mentioned the socialist tendency's of the P-french and a responder said show me the revolution, when did it happen? It happens every time pensions are lowered or the benefits are cut or government subsidies to pharmers are cut ant the Paris streets glistening with urine are crowded with cretins with hoes and hogs blocking traffic until the government aquiesces. Acting like children you say?

thats 12\03

 

[Shinytop]

TillEulenspiegel, all your post proves is that many people believed it. Facts are that Bush was responsible for telling the tale and taking the country to war over it. The rest are making political statments, Bush made war.

There were many valid reasons for the war and we were right to conduct the war. Bush was dead wrong for giving a reason that had not been verified. He alone took action, the blame/credit cannot be shared by clowns making political noises.

 

[kalen]

It was the best intelligence we had at the time. It was the best intelligence we had at the time. It was the best...........

Well, if you put it all on the table:

1. Chalabi's claims,
2. (Known to be) forged documents from Nigeria,
3. Grainy satellite photos,
4. Signals intercepts with open interpretations,
5. UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq physically checking sites.

Which do you think is the "best intelligence?"

Seems to me the best intelligence was completely ignored.

Therefore Bush lied.

 

[merphie]

It was based on contemporaneous postings(my own ).
I have stated that I and many here had posts that nailed the situation and it's consequences. I don't like to quote myself but if You would like proof , I can provide links and text (as many boards don't preserve many years worth of posts) I preserve all posts as a matter of form as they are occasionally needed to correct misquotes and fabrications. Of course without any interrogatives or answers to said posts , there is a problem of context.

snip

One more thing , someone mentioned the socialist tendency's of the P-french and a responder said show me the revolution, when did it happen? It happens every time pensions are lowered or the benefits are cut or government subsidies to pharmers are cut ant the Paris streets glistening with urine are crowded with cretins with hoes and hogs blocking traffic until the government aquiesces. Acting like children you say?

thats 12\03

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

 

[merphie]

There were many valid reasons for the war and we were right to conduct the war. Bush was dead wrong for giving a reason that had not been verified. He alone took action, the blame/credit cannot be shared by clowns making political noises.

When has intelligence been 100%?

What proof would be required? Iraq to come forward and say the had WMD? They did. They told the UN they had made something like 8,000 liters of Anthrax. (Amoung other things)

 

[Shinytop]

When has intelligence been 100%?

What proof would be required? Iraq to come forward and say the had WMD? They did. They told the UN they had made something like 8,000 liters of Anthrax. (Amoung other things)

We claimed we knew they had them and we knew where they were. We could have conducted a raid to verify. We had enough causes for the war without making one up or using one that was not true. After all, where are they?

We also have not seen one shred of evidence that backs up the claim we knew they had them nd we knew where they were. Now we have people asking for evidence he lied. Sorry, there is no evidence he did not. Good leaders demand to hear all sides before making up their minds. Bush only wanted to hear what supported the plan he had already decided on. And his cabinet is demonstration enough he still only wants yes men. A man who does not learn from his mistakes is doomed to repeat them.

 

[SezMe]

There were many valid reasons for the war and we were right to conduct the war. Bush was dead wrong for giving a reason that had not been verified. He alone took action, the blame/credit cannot be shared by clowns making political noises.

Please list "many valid reasons for the war" and also include as a part of those reasons why they do not apply even more to other countries.

Take, for example, the WMD brouhaha. Say Iraq was a tough call. But Pakistan and North Korea were not. Pakistan had conducted nuclear tests and North Korea openly admitted to having a nuke program.

Take, for example, support for terrorist organizations. Iran and Saudi were KNOWN to be supporting terrorists.

Take, for example, human rights. Saddam was said to have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. It is estimated that millions of North Koreans have died of starvation. Millions.

Again, my challenge is for you to provide "many valid reasons" for the invasion of Iraq that 1) do not also apply to other countries and 2) justify the immediacy of the invasion.

 

[a_unique_person]

When has intelligence been 100%?

What proof would be required? Iraq to come forward and say the had WMD? They did. They told the UN they had made something like 8,000 liters of Anthrax. (Amoung other things)

Refer Hans Blix and his requests for more time to determine if Saddam had WMD. The Bush Administration, having mobilised to go to war, could not stop the march to war.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Your welcome. However statements I made are no longer opinion by virtue of history. The statements I made before the fact turned out to be true. So as an actualized reality they become nothing but informed correct judgment.

 

[merphie]

We claimed we knew they had them and we knew where they were. We could have conducted a raid to verify. We had enough causes for the war without making one up or using one that was not true. After all, where are they?

We also have not seen one shred of evidence that backs up the claim we knew they had them nd we knew where they were. Now we have people asking for evidence he lied. Sorry, there is no evidence he did not. Good leaders demand to hear all sides before making up their minds. Bush only wanted to hear what supported the plan he had already decided on. And his cabinet is demonstration enough he still only wants yes men. A man who does not learn from his mistakes is doomed to repeat them.

what you suggest is no better than what was done. Commit an act of war? The only difference between your plan and Bush is he sent more people.