Study: Bush led U.S. to war on 'false pretenses'

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa So that justified invading how? All kinds of countries have irked the UN. What made Iraq such a unique danger

I'm not going to go over the reasons to justify this war YET AGAIN. If you're not getting it by now, you obviously will never comprehend the reasons.

Quote by: grandpa (especially when, again, they didn't appear to have a weapons program in effect)?

Very nice...you're trying to use information gained AFTER the invasion as justification for NOT invading...you do understand how your logic doesn't work, right?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval ...you're trying to use information gained AFTER the invasion as justification for NOT invading... you do understand how your logic doesn't work, right?

Obviously, that is logical. If we know for a fact that Saddam didn't have a nuclear wepaons program, how would it justify the invasion? Or, if you assume logic cannot be applied in retrospect (a position I don't share), roughly the same argument was reasonable during the inspections. If they did not find a weapons program, why stop the inspections? Would you really have me believe Saddam's supposed "games" justified invading the country again? Or what if they actually did find weapons? Would that be an instant excuse to invade because Saddam supposedly headed a uniquely powerful state?

And, of course, there were skeptics all along, such as Scott Ritter.

Grandpa h.

[xyzer]

More left wing propaganda that is either illogical or insane?

Let's not forget the threat of a Mushroom cloud over a U.S. city as well... oh wait you did forget about that.

Huh! Please find one reference to the Iraq Pre-2003 rocket/missile capability to launch a missile to strike the continental USA? Mushrooms may have crowded your vision?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Dieval You're not taking in to account that the owners of McDonalds at one time HAD Big Macs that were made of "almond paste, red river mud, salmon roe and seaweed", would not comply with international inspectors for over 12 years to prove that they had changed their Big Macs, and every country on Earth believed that they were making Big Macs from "almond paste, red river mud, salmon roe and seaweed" and not "2 all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickels and onions on a sesame seed bun".

I am taking everything into account. He did not say "When we were major investors in McDonalds and wanted them to defeat the evil Wendy's empire, we sold some salmon roe to McDonalds that was in the Big Macs produced at the time. Because we helped them make fake beef patties from salmon roe, we know they have done it. Now that it suits our purposes, we want you to be appalled at this type of behavior. Now that it suits our purposes, we would like you to believe that, even though it came back and bit us in the ass and we did our damnedest to put an end to their ability to make those nasty burgers, quit selling them salmon roe and put inspectors in corporate headquarters and on the road checking every resturant for the last 10 years, and have no real evidence that they have made Big Macs out of anything other than TABPSSLCPOASSB in that time frame, we would still like you to believe they are making those nasty burgers." No, that is not what they said. They said, " We KNOW they are making those nasty burgers! Here is a picture of the mobil "red river mud" van. We have asked them to quit driving those evil vans and they refuse. We demand they allow us to move into headquarters and take over production of Big Macs so that we can prove to you and the world they are no longer producing those evil burgers. If they do not do this by March, we will blow them up." Bush lied. The "red river mud vans" were bun delivery trucks. They knew it was a lie and they controlled the information that could contradict the lie. They made the inspectors leave and hired a few people to tell the stories they wanted told, and pretended that was the best, most reliable information available. Bush lied.

Quote by: Dieval Also, I guess you didn't read much more of the article I linked, than the portion I linked...

The above puts the lie to those statements. Again, show me how they fudged the data. If you can not, stop claiming they fudged the data. They may have wanted to believe what they said, but they knew they had no proof. So, they listened to a bunch of asses who said what they wanted to believe and ignored everything else. They sold you on the lie and you SO don't want to be a dupe, that no matter how many times someone shows you the Big Mac, free of almond paste, red river mud, salmon roe and seaweed, you just keep saying "It can't be a lie because I believed it."

[thx1138]

I'm not going to go over the reasons to justify this war YET AGAIN. If you're not getting it by now, you obviously will never comprehend the renasos.

What a bunch of BS, it's you who will never comprehend that government played the people like a fiddle.

The pundits of war in the government knew that Iraq did not have an active Nuclear program, but that did not stop them from fudging the information about the yellow cake from africa. Remember we don't want the proof of a smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over a U.S. city? What was that about?

but you're right nobody with half a nut in their head is going to "comprehend the renasons" give for going to war.

Now if you were to say that the war was about controlling the sale of oil I would go along with that.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Dieval You asked what games he played...I outlined what he did within the VERY FIRST YEAR. Enough said right there. Use the link and look at the rest of the years, if you want a broader picture of their lack of compliance. We wouldn't need CONTINUOUS resolutions for their actions(or lack their of) if they were complying with their obligations.

Like I said, garbage. Nothing in your link is later than 1999. You're trying to justify a war based on claims more than 11 years old.

[xyzer]

grandpa..Surely you jest?

Obviously, that is logical. If we know for a fact that Saddam didn't have a nuclear wepaons program, how would it justify the invasion

It has been admitted that Saddams nuclear capabilty had been destroyed by Israel but as I posted above he still had a program? Plus you slip into the good old ploy of insisting WMD means only nuclear weapons? Thats antiwar manufactured BS not logic!
He had biological and chemical WMD and used them. Don't give us that illogical assumption and clam its logical;. Its as bad as the assertion about Iraq having the missile capability to strike continental USA?

The invasion was not launched because of any Iraqi nuclear threat and no one with a logical outlook admits such nonsense. Saddam had WMD(chemical and biological) and still had a nuclear program. The war was launched by congressional approval to deter Saddams expansionist aims in the middle east and to try to stabilize the region? It was a follow omn in the war against international terrorism.

[grandpa]

Quote by: xyzer grandpa..Surely you jest?

No. The joke is to blame Saddam for using weapons other countries sold him (incluing the US) during a war that America backed (the Iran-Iraq War).

Now, at least according to this article, the US may be more secure with the new government it set up:
Iraq seeks sharply reduced U.S. military role - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

BAGHDAD - The United States and Iraq will soon begin negotiating a power shift for U.S. forces, nearly five years after they invaded Iraq and installed a new government, Iraqi and U.S. officials told NBC News on Thursday. Both countries are working on assembling negotiating teams to shape a new long-term bilateral strategic agreement redefining the fundamental role of U.S. troops, whose mission would shift from combat operations to logistics and support, the officials told NBC News’ Richard Engel.

Grandpa h.

[thx1138]

The war was launched by congressional approval to deter Saddams expansionist aims in the middle east and to try to stabilize the region? It was a follow omn in the war against international terrorism.

Wow you talk about the anti-war BS, you take the cake.

First you state that the Bush.co never threated the U.S. public with a "mushroom cloud" over one of its cities, and now you're saying that it was about stopping "Saddams expansionist aims". Iraq was half the size after Gulf war I.

I beg to ask where was he planning to expan to? On top his army was a paper army which Bush.co agreed in early 2001.

Stop the BS the only expansionist is the U.S.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: xyzer The war was launched by congressional approval to deter Saddams expansionist aims in the middle east and to try to stabilize the region?

A flat out lie. congress voted to give bush the option to start his war, but congress has never had the guts to vote directly for approval or disapproval. You may put up with something without giving your approval for it.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: grandpa Now, at least according to this article, the US may be more secure with the new government it set up: Iraq seeks sharply reduced U.S. military role - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com Grandpa h.

Notice that the link made no claim of a total U.S. withdrawal. With 14 permanent bases and the largest embassy in the world (in a country twice the size of Idaho), one has to wonder about what "logistics and support" are going to be provided to Iraq.

[xyzer]

zee..please! Don't join the myth makers stumbling in the cornflakes? Is this a lie about congressional approval? Be sure to read all the whereases..
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Facts belie emotional (anti-war) nonsense such as that produced by some on this thread? Mushroom clouds and WMD's my a@#?

[xyzer]

thx..says

First you state that the Bush.co never threated the U.S. public with a "mushroom cloud" over one of its cities, and now you're saying that it was about stopping "Saddams expansionist aims". Iraq was half the size after Gulf war I.

Surely you jest? Iraq didn't invade Kuwait? Iraq didn't fight a war with Iran? Iraq didn't violate the Kuwait peacr agreement it signed? Iraq didn't shhoot missiles at US patrol aircraft?
Wow?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Zeebadee Notice that the link made no claim of a total U.S. withdrawal. With 14 permanent bases and the largest embassy in the world (in a country twice the size of Idaho), one has to wonder about what "logistics and support" are going to be provided to Iraq.

One thing is clear, the US government sees a right to stay, and this right is defended by the following military logic, as worded by Ranan R. Lurie:

Iraq should be treated as an island state without a navy. The "ocean" is a combination of the desert (almost half of the country) and Iraq's hostile neighbors. The "navy" in this case is actually the air force because in the desert, the one who has the more efficient air force is the winner before the war even begins. In the desert there is no place to hide from marauding planes or smart bombs.

United Jerusalem - - Commentary -- 9/6/2002

America feels it must maintain such control generally.
For example, United States Senator George Voinovich used fancy rhetoric to justify bombing the Balkans.

He was quick to remind us that "I have often said that 'there is some good that blows in an ill
wind,' and I consider this war to be an 'ill wind.'"

But no worry, because "the good that is blowing is the opportunity for the United
States and NATO to provide the impetus for a lasting peace to prevail
throughout Southeastern Europe."

For Mr. Voinovich, it is to our virtue that, after we bomb and destroy needed infrastrcuture, "We can [still] provide the reconstruction assistance that righted the economies of the rest of Europe after World War II and which has made them economically prosperous and willing defenders of the rights of all
men and women."

The true motive?
"...In the end, I believe it was prayer and the Holy Spirit that brought
enlightenment to our leaders that the death and destruction in Kosovo
and Serbia must stop. Enough was enough."

[Congressional Record: June 21, 1999 (Senate)]

IRAQ WRAPUP 3-Iraq ready for "final" battle with al Qaeda - PM

Meanwhile, conflict still rages in Iraq, presumably thanks in large part to "prayer and the Holy Spirit":

BAGHDAD, Jan 25 (Reuters) - Iraqi security forces have begun a "decisive" final offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq to push the Sunni Islamist militants out of their last major stronghold in the north, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Friday. He said Iraqi soldiers and police were being sent to Mosul, where a massive blast blamed on al Qaeda killed 40 people and wounded 220 on Wednesday, and an operations room had been set up in the city, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad.

Grandpa h.

[thx1138]

Quote by: xyzer thx..says Surely you jest? Iraq didn't invade Kuwait? Iraq didn't fight a war with Iran? Iraq didn't violate the Kuwait peacr agreement it signed? Iraq didn't shhoot missiles at US patrol aircraft? Wow?

Ok cornflakes,

Who supported Iraq in the war with Iran?
The U.S. and supplyed WMDs to Iraq.

Why did Iraq invade Kuwait?
Kuwait was stealing oil from Iraq using side-ways drilling. Any country that was have resources stolen from it would do the same.
Kuwait's Oil Industry Rises From the Ashes of War - New York Times

The horizontal method gives producers access to more of an oil reservoir. "This will give three or four times the oil that a vertical well would produce," Mr. Decker shouted over the roar of four 1,250-horsepower diesel generator engines and the clank and whir of the mammoth drill. Surveying the wreckage of the Kuwaiti oil fields as the guns of the Gulf war fell silent toward the end of February 1991, experts estimated it would take four or five years before all the fires could be put out and the oil fields sufficiently rebuilt to even begin approaching its prewar levels of production.

It was media lies about babies in incubators being killed that was used to dupe the public into supporting the attack. It was about oil the same reason Iraq invaded Kuwait. No double standard there.. ha ha ha.
When contemplating war, beware of babies in incubators | csmonitor.com

completely understood his feelings. Although I had no family of my own then, who could countenance such brutality? The news of the slaughter had come at a key moment in the deliberations about whether the US would invade Iraq. Those who watched the non-stop debates on TV saw that many of those who had previously wavered on the issue had been turned into warriors by this shocking incident. E-mail this story Write a letter to the Editor Printer-friendly version del.icio.us [ What is this? ] digg [ What is this? ] Get all the Monitor's headlines by e-mail. Subscribe for free. Too bad it never happened. The babies in the incubator story is a classic example of how easy it is for the public and legislators to be mislead during moments of high tension. It's also a vivid example of how the media can be manipulated if we do not keep our guards up. The invented story eventually broke apart and was exposed. (I first saw it reported in December of 1992 on CBC-TV's Fifth Estate – Canada's "60 Minutes" – in a program called "Selling the War." The show later won an international Emmy.) But it's been 10 years since it happened, and we again find ourselves facing dramatic decisions about war. It is instructive to look back at what happened, in order that we do not find ourselves deceived again, by either side in the issue.

Why wouldn't a country fire on emeny aircraft over its country?

You think the U.N. and the U.S. can dictate to a sovereign nation, well I guess you're in the one world government camp and think the U.N. should have rule over all of us.

And let's not forget the public of the U.S. was trick again with false lies about the threat of a mushroom cloud over one of its cities, if I'm not right you didn't hear about that lie on the march to war.

[grandpa]

Quote by: thx1138 Ok cornflakes, Who supported Iraq in the war with Iran? The U.S. and supplyed WMDs to Iraq.

And, presumably, the US government may still be interested in an Iraq-Israel oil pipeline, similar to what Rumsfeld discussed back when he met with Saddam as a "special envoy."

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

Though apparently Bush made many false claims regarding Saddam's Iraq, the isue ought to be whether he knew these statements were false at the time he uttered them.

If Bush was told there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and he had reason to believe this was true, there is nothing wrongful in his conveying that message and his concerns arising over this information to the public.

The suggestion has been made that Bush, knowing that what he said was false, deliberately repeated it and even had concocted evidence fabricated to support false claims when disputed. I'd like to see some proof of this.

Now it is known the claims of wmds were exagerated, no 'smoking gun' was found, but this is not the same as saying Bush knew there was nothing there and said there were all sorts of these weapons anyway.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez Though apparently Bush made many false claims regarding Saddam's Iraq, the isue ought to be whether he knew these statements were false at the time he uttered them.

So what you're saying is that making all kinds of claims, including claims that lead to terrible death and destruction, is ok as long as those claims haven't been proven false??

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't claims such as bush made require proof before being believed??

[rmnunez]

No, what I'm saying is that making claims you know are false is blameworthy and that claiming something you think is true and later is shown to be false is not as bad.

Bush should have sought to confirm the claims he made and probably did. If he asked the CIA and others in the intelligence community and they fed him lies, how should he have known?

I don't believe Bush just wanted to invade Iraq and told the CIA or anyone else to make up something so he could claim it in public to justify an attack. This is what the critical left tells us and I'd like to see some evidence to support this claim.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: rmnunez No, what I'm saying is that making claims you know are false is blameworthy and that claiming something you think is true and later is shown to be false is not as bad. Bush should have sought to confirm the claims he made and probably did. If he asked the CIA and others in the intelligence community and they fed him lies, how should he have known? I don't believe Bush just wanted to invade Iraq and told the CIA or anyone else to make up something so he could claim it in public to justify an attack. This is what the critical left tells us and I'd like to see some evidence to support this claim.

No, what the "critical left" claims and has everything short of films of the process to support, is that when the established intelligence community could not state that Iraq was doing the things that would justify an invasion, Bush and Co. created new channels that fed them the views they wanted to hear. They were not stupid enough to go to the public with "we just know it, despite the evidence" claims. So, they did everything but put an ad on the internet asking for someone to tell them what they wanted to hear. And then when they got the streams of information they wanted, they spun it all in "worst case scenario possible as most likely outcome" language, then proceeded to make speeches where they insisted that if the congress did not give the administration the power to invade, it would make the US seem weak to our allies and friends alike. It was all a witches brew for getting where they wanted to be, to be able to "shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests." That last quote can be found here (Statement of Principles), the PNAC statement of principles and take a look at the names of the people who signed that statement. We are not making this shit up, you know. And if you doubt that this was the plan from the start, just check out this quote:

"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

This comes from a letter that was sent to Clinton while he was still in office. Find the letter here: Letter to President Clinton on Iraq