Bush Administration Makes 935 False Statements on Iraq

[Topless T/A]

WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

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

[Tripw0l]

NOPE, liberal media!

[Topless T/A]

NOPE, liberal media!

Those dirty liberals and their stupid facts!!!

Actually, I was surprised that it was only 935 times :lol:

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida,"

Oh, if dead Kurds could talk...

[moldyhands]

Oh, if dead Kurds could talk...
i'm pretty sure the period in question is 2000+, not the 1980s. there was no dispute whether iraq had WMDs back in the 80s when they killed the kurds, we supplied them to iraq. however we also knew the shelf life on those gases (which had expired) and yet that was still one of the things we listed that we "knew" he had.

really, this isn't a surprise at all. i think the majority of american people know that bush out and out lied to get us involved with iraq. it's sad that people accept it so readily however.

[DaveDavis]

Bush is an ass

[PPGMD]

So over half of the "false" statements were simply say that according to the evidence available to him that Iraq had WMDs.

I guess that would make the Democrat liars?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Remember that from 1998 on their were no weapon inspectors there to find WMDs, so unless Iraq destroyed them any thing that would have been there while these people were making their speeches for Clinton's war plans should have been there in 2003.

Also I did some checking up on both Corporations and Foundations, and it's donors. The Center for Public Integrity, used to be funded by Corporations that traditionally donate to liberal causes, and unions. Since then they switched over to personal funding only, their directors are almost all journalists many with awards from liberal leaning articles, or openly liberal.

I found similar results from the Fund for Independence in Journalism. Their name gives it away but if you check out their directors you find similar trend in their directors.

[Iroc Joe]

I think it is fairly common knowledge the administration was planning to invade Iraq before 9/11 and used the attacks as a springboard to finally push, albeit a decade late, the neoconservative ideals in Washington.

[Topless T/A]

So over half of the "false" statements were simply say that according to the evidence available to him that Iraq had WMDs.

I guess that would make the Democrat liars?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Remember that from 1998 on their were no weapon inspectors there to find WMDs, so unless Iraq destroyed them any thing that would have been there while these people were making their speeches for Clinton's war plans should have been there in 2003.

Also I did some checking up on both Corporations and Foundations, and it's donors. The Center for Public Integrity, used to be funded by Corporations that traditionally donate to liberal causes, and unions. Since then they switched over to personal funding only, their directors are almost all journalists many with awards from liberal leaning articles, or openly liberal.

I found similar results from the Fund for Independence in Journalism. Their name gives it away but if you check out their directors you find similar trend in their directors.

Yeh but it doesn't matter if it's a liberal source or not in this case...facts are facts.

And the "evidence available to him" argument is invalid as well...personally, if there was nobody there to inspect for WMD's then how are you going to institute a war based on the presence of WMD's? Why are you going to back support for something that you have no proof of? I think it's fairly obvious that little Bush just wanted to finish what his father failed at....that and everyone panicking after 9/11.....and oil.

[PPGMD]

Yeh but it doesn't matter if it's a liberal source or not in this case...facts are facts.

And the "evidence available to him" argument is invalid as well...personally, if there was nobody there to inspect for WMD's then how are you going to institute a war based on the presence of WMD's? Why are you going to back support for something that you have no proof of? I think it's fairly obvious that little Bush just wanted to finish what his father failed at....that and everyone panicking after 9/11.....and oil.

When dealing with intelligence there are no facts, just evidence that support a conclusion. The evidence did support the conclusion that not only was Iraq pursuing WMDs, but they were hiding something from the weapon inspectors. We also had evidence that the Saddam regime was supporting terror. We also had evidence that they were brutally oppressing their people.

Once we got boots on the ground and examined documents we say that he was bluffing that he had WMDs so he wouldn't appear weak to the other nations in the region. And that his terror support was for individuals but no direct support of the major terror organizations (who wanted nothing to do with him since he was secular).

Intelligence is notoriously bad, when Pakistan and India detonated their first nuclear weapon we had no advanced notice what so ever, we also couldn't spot Saddam's invasion of Kuwait until the very last moment. One and a half out of three isn't that bad in the grand scheme of things when dealing with international intelligence particularly since the agencies were decimated by budget cuts through the 90's. It takes years to establish human intelligence networks, particularly in countries where we have no formal diplomatic relations with.

Now you are the one drawing conclusions from sketchy facts, read Bush at War. Bush was against a war with Iraq when he entered office, he also pushed aside his adviser that wanted to attack Iraq after 9/11. When intelligence documents pointed that they had to deal with Iraq that's when he started pushing it.

[Treysdad]

Who really cares. He's President and will be out of office in just under a year. He'll soon drop off the radar just as Bill Clinton did.

[Scott]

So over half of the "false" statements were simply say that according to the evidence available to him that Iraq had WMDs.

I guess that would make the Democrat liars?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Remember that from 1998 on their were no weapon inspectors there to find WMDs, so unless Iraq destroyed them any thing that would have been there while these people were making their speeches for Clinton's war plans should have been there in 2003.

Also I did some checking up on both Corporations and Foundations, and it's donors. The Center for Public Integrity, used to be funded by Corporations that traditionally donate to liberal causes, and unions. Since then they switched over to personal funding only, their directors are almost all journalists many with awards from liberal leaning articles, or openly liberal.

I found similar results from the Fund for Independence in Journalism. Their name gives it away but if you check out their directors you find similar trend in their directors.



Ahh real facts. :lol:

Big suprise some libs are at the core of it. :lmao:

Points for you !

[Scott]

When dealing with intelligence there are no facts, just evidence that support a conclusion. The evidence did support the conclusion that not only was Iraq pursuing WMDs, but they were hiding something from the weapon inspectors. We also had evidence that the Saddam regime was supporting terror. We also had evidence that they were brutally oppressing their people.

Once we got boots on the ground and examined documents we say that he was bluffing that he had WMDs so he wouldn't appear weak to the other nations in the region. And that his terror support was for individuals but no direct support of the major terror organizations (who wanted nothing to do with him since he was secular).

Intelligence is notoriously bad, when Pakistan and India detonated their first nuclear weapon we had no advanced notice what so ever, we also couldn't spot Saddam's invasion of Kuwait until the very last moment. One and a half out of three isn't that bad in the grand scheme of things when dealing with international intelligence particularly since the agencies were decimated by budget cuts through the 90's. It takes years to establish human intelligence networks, particularly in countries where we have no formal diplomatic relations with.

Now you are the one drawing conclusions from sketchy facts, read Bush at War. Bush was against a war with Iraq when he entered office, he also pushed aside his adviser that wanted to attack Iraq after 9/11. When intelligence documents pointed that they had to deal with Iraq that's when he started pushing it.


Ouch ! Don't be so rough on them.

Speaking of the budget cuts you mention in the 90's ( from Clinton right ? ) to "balance the budget " :roll: he also had this POS of a human being Jamie Gurelick ( Google your favorite source ) build a wall between the CIA and FBI to help further strangulate or intel abilities. You know because most libs hate the military. Then we could talk about Able Danger but that would be way of course.

Anyhow for every lib pointing flaws about Bush you can typically believe about 10% of it and then turn to them as the actual root for most of the other 90% they are trying to cover as already pointed out.

Now bring on the hate and attacks like good libs ! :love: ;)

[Jessica]

Bush is an ass

:lmao: +1

[Topless T/A]

Ouch ! Don't be so rough on them.

Speaking of the budget cuts you mention in the 90's ( from Clinton right ? ) to "balance the budget " :roll: he also had this POS of a human being Jamie Gurelick ( Google your favorite source ) build a wall between the CIA and FBI to help further strangulate or intel abilities. You know because most libs hate the military. Then we could talk about Able Danger but that would be way of course.

Anyhow for every lib pointing flaws about Bush you can typically believe about 10% of it and then turn to them as the actual root for most of the other 90% they are trying to cover as already pointed out.

Now bring on the hate and attacks like good libs ! :love: ;)

It's posts like that which make me think that someone should rename TF the "Forum for the Deaf and the Blind"

[Treysdad]

It's posts like that which make me think that someone should rename TF the "Forum for the Deaf and the Blind"

Rumor is that there is a political forum in the works. I'll suggest to Billy that maybe they include this in the title of that forum if it ever happens :lol:

[moldyhands]

It's posts like that which make me think that someone should rename TF the "Forum for the Deaf and the Blind"
in scott's eyes, bush can do no wrong:lol:

[Scott]

It's posts like that which make me think that someone should rename TF the "Forum for the Deaf and the Blind"


Yes it should, you would fit right in with Moldy. :lol: Great points were made by PPGMD and you and you cohort are standing their with your wankers in the wind with nothing else to say. Figured I would reply and give you something to reply to, it worked. :lmao:

Now go ahead and take apart PPGMD's posts or part of mine about Gurelick. Otherwise we will expect some third grade rhetoric.

[Scott]

in scott's eyes, bush can do no wrong:lol:



I have pointed out issues I have had with Bush you just choose to see it how ever it fits best for you.

Anyhow the original post got taken apart well and you guys resort to the status quo when that happens. Kind of like watching Obama and Billary on stage. :lmao:


Later sweetie !

[Topless T/A]

Yes it should, you would fit right in with Moldy. :lol: Great points were made by PPGMD and you and you cohort are standing their with your wankers in the wind with nothing else to say. Figured I would reply and give you something to reply to, it worked. :lmao:

Now go ahead and take apart PPGMD's posts or part of mine about Gurelick. Otherwise we will expect some third grade rhetoric.

was that supposed to be a coherent point?

[Political_Man]

Counting how many times the Administration repeated false intelligence is not helpful, nor worthy of debate. The Administration has already admitted they were mistaken about any weapons of mass destruction Iraq was believed to have had, so what is the purpose of the study?

Ultimately each individual is going to have to decide what they believe based on logic and the information available. I would submit to you this though; a government evil enough to start a war on pretenses they know to be false, is evil enough to make sure the pretenses to the war come true once the invasion is underway. I would be more willing to believe a conspiracy had WMDs actually been found, than to believe the Government was stupid enough to start a war and then undermine their own war by not "finding" weapons of mass destruction once the invasion began.

We're back to the whole Bush is "Dr. Evil" nonsense again...

[PPGMD]

I agree if they were going for a conspiracy to start the war they would have planted at least a few barrels of the WMDs that they were looking for. Since it would have been destroyed in short order there likely wouldn't be enough time to do testing to determine it's source.

And if they kept the operation small enough they could keep in secret for many years to come.

[moldyhands]

Counting how many times the Administration repeated false intelligence is not helpful, nor worthy of debate. The Administration has already admitted they were mistaken about any weapons of mass destruction Iraq was believed to have had, so what is the purpose of the study?

Ultimately each individual is going to have to decide what they believe based on logic and the information available. I would submit to you this though; a government evil enough to start a war on pretenses they know to be false, is evil enough to make sure the pretenses to the war come true once the invasion is underway. I would be more willing to believe a conspiracy had WMDs actually been found, than to believe the Government was stupid enough to start a war and then undermine their own war by not "finding" weapons of mass destruction once the invasion began.

We're back to the whole Bush is "Dr. Evil" nonsense again...
i believe that bush honestly believed there were WMDs and therefore he felt justified to lie about evidence and to coerce evidence to get his war. i feel like bush wanted this war from day 1 in office and was willing to do whatever was necessary to get there.

and please, our gov't has started bogus wars plenty of times. look how they lied to us about vietnam, went into central and south america on a number of occasions. it's easy to get the people supporting a war up front.

[PPGMD]

Moldy,

Take a look at the documentation about the administration from more neutral sources, yes there was a single adviser in his administration that was gung ho to take out Saddam, but the President was against it until 2002, numerous unbiased books show this.

After 9/11 it was the President who set the direction of his administration to find out how did the attack and attack them. Unlike what numerous advisers suggested taking out Iraq first since they had to be involved.

[Topless T/A]

Moldy,

Take a look at the documentation about the administration from more neutral sources, yes there was a single adviser in his administration that was gung ho to take out Saddam, but the President was against it until 2002, numerous unbiased books show this.

After 9/11 it was the President who set the direction of his administration to find out how did the attack and attack them. Unlike what numerous advisers suggested taking out Iraq first since they had to be involved.

Let me go back to one of my personal beliefs....do you (and any other Bush suporters for that matter) think that there was no real feeling in GW to go back and get Saddam after his father couldn't do it? I strongly believe that the father-son Bush combo knew that they were going to go after Saddam long before GW got into office.

[PPGMD]

Let me go back to one of my personal beliefs....do you (and any other Bush suporters for that matter) think that there was no real feeling in GW to go back and get Saddam after his father couldn't do it? I strongly believe that the father-son Bush combo knew that they were going to go after Saddam long before GW got into office.

You can believe all you want but the evidence doesn't support it. If they really wanted to take out Iraq they would have linked the hijackers to Iraq and invaded then. It's not like they would complain they're dead.

[Topless T/A]

You can believe all you want but the evidence doesn't support it. If they really wanted to take out Iraq they would have linked the hijackers to Iraq and invaded then. It's not like they would complain they're dead.

you'd have a semi-difficult time linking them (and nobody catching it) when they wern't all Iraqi's to begin with...oh well, I'll just take the conservative route and believe whatever I want to believe :lol:

[Scott]

Let me go back to one of my personal beliefs....do you (and any other Bush suporters for that matter) think that there was no real feeling in GW to go back and get Saddam after his father couldn't do it? I strongly believe that the father-son Bush combo knew that they were going to go after Saddam long before GW got into office.


And you elude to us Repubs are whack and wear blinders. That is the craziest shit I have heard in a while.

So to answer your question, no !

Bush Sr. stopped from going in to get Saddam it was not unfinished family business or him not being able to do it. I could post a link to the Time magazine article where he talked about this but Time removed it from their database, weird eh ? Damn media and its non slanted-nesss.

Heck it would have been much easier then than now so I wish he would have. Why some can not get over this conspiracy that Bush was going no matter what is beyond me, you have been given avenue to go check within this thread, problem is you do not want to listen. Or for Moldy, " Bush is wrong on everything" so why bother.

And I thought libs were supposed to be more enlightened. ;)

[slowsohc]

Oh, if dead Kurds could talk...

Screw the kurds Chuck!! They're not American. Not like he was killing women and children also, was he? Oh but he did that so long ago we'll let it slide. Screw that Iraq was a hub for international terrorism. Yes, there were/are terrorist organizations in Iraq. Hell, all over that fucking area.

So wait this document is about Iraq NOT having WMDs. Are we really gonna get on this one again?

[PPGMD]

you'd have a semi-difficult time linking them (and nobody catching it) when they wern't all Iraqi's to begin with...oh well, I'll just take the conservative route and believe whatever I want to believe :lol:

Most of the hijackers were Saudi, it's a lot easier to make the leap into Iraq then into Afghanistan.

[Scott]

Most of the hijackers were Saudi, it's a lot easier to make the leap into Iraq then into Afghanistan.



15 of 19 were Saudi.

[Topless T/A]

Most of the hijackers were Saudi, it's a lot easier to make the leap into Iraq then into Afghanistan.

Explain to me how that is easier when the attacks were linked directly to Bin Laden.....

[moldyhands]

Most of the hijackers were Saudi, it's a lot easier to make the leap into Iraq then into Afghanistan.
how do we link saudi nationals to iraq? saudi arabia and iraq weren't exactly allies. closer to enemies in fact.

[PPGMD]

Explain to me how that is easier when the attacks were linked directly to Bin Laden.....

They could have easily said that Bin Laden was in Iraq.

The Saudis are enemies of Saddam not their muslims brothers in Iraq.

[jabtay]

i believe that bush honestly believed there were WMDs and therefore he felt justified to lie about evidence and to coerce evidence to get his war. i feel like bush wanted this war from day 1 in office and was willing to do whatever was necessary to get there.


Let me go back to one of my personal beliefs....
So you are basing this on your beliefs and speculations? You also believe Republicans are blind, and warmongers. Instead of going on facts, you let your hatred control your thinking.

[Topless T/A]

So you are basing this on your beliefs and speculations? The Republicans you also believe are blind, and warmongers. Instead of going on facts, you let your hatred control your thinking.

I believe there's a fair amount of proof that the Republicans are warmongers :lol:

[moldyhands]

Moldy,

Take a look at the documentation about the administration from more neutral sources, yes there was a single adviser in his administration that was gung ho to take out Saddam, but the President was against it until 2002, numerous unbiased books show this.

After 9/11 it was the President who set the direction of his administration to find out how did the attack and attack them. Unlike what numerous advisers suggested taking out Iraq first since they had to be involved.
like i said. common sense. reading books, articles, memos, exposes, etc. will only ever show what they want you to see. people that high up rarely expose themselves. to me, it's common sense that bush had it in for iraq from day 1. remember the stupid axis of evil? north korea? iran? iraq? HUGE threats:roll:

this country's governments have made a history of exploiting its citizenry by creating fake needs for wars. i choose not to trust my gov't.

[Notladstyle]

Im just wondering how many speeding tickets 183 billion dollars would pay...

[jabtay]

I believe there's a fair amount of proof that the Republicans are warmongers :lol:
Yeah...I can accept that 8)

[Dano Moparo]

I believe there's a fair amount of proof that the Republicans are warmongers :lol:

And after researching articles that you post, there seems to be a fair amount of proof you and your like are liars.

Anyone who could spend a few moments researching this garbage that gets posted by communist supporters could find that its a George Soros think tank.

And is it a lie if it's common knowledge? I mean if every intellegence agency in the world concluded that Sadaam has/had WMD's including most if not all the democrats at the time, and later nothing was found, does that automatically make it a lie?

No, what I consider a lie is propaganda like this trying to be passed off as a serious study by a non-partisian group.

[Strongest Man In The World]

i heard it was 936, but whos counting anyway..

oh yeah the liberals are :)

[slowsohc]

i heard it was 936, but whos counting anyway..

oh yeah the liberals are :)

No Donnie it is 936 now. They found another one since the first post and yours, :lol: :lol:

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

No worries. In a year Bush will be gone and we will be back to Clinton lying about blowjobs, giving away tech secrets to China and flaccid responses to the global jihad.

But if he/she can operate within the budget maybe it'll be worth a few U.S. Embassies, hotels and military ships.

[Kryptix]

No worries. In a year Bush will be gone and we will be back to Clinton lying about blowjobs, giving away tech secrets to China and flaccid responses to the global jihad.

But if he/she can operate within the budget maybe it'll be worth a few U.S. Embassies, hotels and military ships.

Why do we have to give away tech secrets when they can just take them?

[jabtay]

Why do we have to give away tech secrets when they can just take them?
I never heard of a plane being forced down in China then the plane held hostage for 3 weeks before we got it back during the Clinton era :crack: So you would be correct for once ;)

[Scott]

Where did everyone go ? :dunno: That's weird.

[Topless T/A]

And after researching articles that you post, there seems to be a fair amount of proof you and your like are liars.

Anyone who could spend a few moments researching this garbage that gets posted by communist supporters could find that its a George Soros think tank.

And is it a lie if it's common knowledge? I mean if every intellegence agency in the world concluded that Sadaam has/had WMD's including most if not all the democrats at the time, and later nothing was found, does that automatically make it a lie?

No, what I consider a lie is propaganda like this trying to be passed off as a serious study by a non-partisian group.


communist supporters?....:lol:.....I think I need to buy stock in a few tin foil companies.

How is it common knowledge that saddam had WMD's when nobody had any proof of it? That aside, who the fuck goes to war without a plan? Who continues to lie about the reasons for going to war when they themselves know that they were wrong?....give it up man, your boy GW is going to go down in history as one of the worst Presidents ever.

[blurboEK]

communist supporters?....:lol:.....I think I need to buy stock in a few tin foil companies.

How is it common knowledge that saddam had WMD's when nobody had any proof of it? That aside, who the fuck goes to war without a plan? Who continues to lie about the reasons for going to war when they themselves know that they were wrong?....give it up man, your boy GW is going to go down in history as one of the worst Presidents ever.

Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll go down in history as the fifth president to be assassinated.. :dunno:

[Scott]

How is it common knowledge that Saddam had WMD's when nobody had any proof of it?

I even pulled the article from the biggest liberal piece of toilet paper I could find.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/world/middleeast/21kurds.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I am sure if these people would like to tell you about Saddam having WMD's but they are of course dead.

Here is info. ( and not from some bias rag ) on the weapons inspections and how Saddam was not complying, we found a lot of items used to deliver and make WMD's but not the actual agents. These stories ran for about 10 seconds. :roll:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/01-16_index.htm

So again less " well I think" and more items with some facts. Of course when some of you do not like to read these you go right to the source to discredit without even pondering any of it.

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

That aside, who the fuck goes to war without a plan?

Only in a free speech country could a president be accused of not having a war plan after capturing, trying and executing a dictator, replacing an entire government with a democracy and organizing a first election that had a higher turnout than American elections.

If you want outta Iraq that's fine, but the only loss has been by the Iraqi people not stepping up. It hasn't been America.

If there is one thing this war has shown it is that not all people want to be free. Iraq will be a terrific counter to the next pleas by bleeding heart libs or war mongering conservatives to liberate a country. Gawd help the countries who truly want and deserve our assistance. But what the hell, five years after this war is over people will forget and we will be back to liberating people again.

[Topless T/A]

I even pulled the article from the biggest liberal piece of toilet paper I could find.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/world/middleeast/21kurds.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I am sure if these people would like to tell you about Saddam having WMD's but they are of course dead.

Here is info. ( and not from some bias rag ) on the weapons inspections and how Saddam was not complying, we found a lot of items used to deliver and make WMD's but not the actual agents. These stories ran for about 10 seconds. :roll:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/01-16_index.htm

So again less " well I think" and more items with some facts. Of course when some of you do not like to read these you go right to the source to discredit without even pondering any of it.


So you're going to base the present war on something that happened in 1988? Well in that case I think the south needs to rise up, go buy some muskets, and lets go get those silly Union soldiers! Then after that, maybe England can go sink the Bismark for the second time, and after that we can finally go after Hitler once and for all!

And I hardly believe that the existence of some EMPTY chemical warheads (probrably also from the 1980's) is enough to go to war...we all know that the term "WMD" was used primarily by the Bush adm. to point at the presence of larger, more powerful weapons anyways.....weapons that don't exist.

[Topless T/A]

Only in a free speech country could a president be accused of not having a war plan after capturing, trying and executing a dictator, replacing an entire government with a democracy and organizing a first election that had a higher turnout than American elections.

If you want outta Iraq that's fine, but the only loss has been by the Iraqi people not stepping up. It hasn't been America.

If there is one thing this war has shown it is that not all people want to be free. Iraq will be a terrific counter to the next pleas by bleeding heart libs or war mongering conservatives to liberate a country. Gawd help the countries who truly want and deserve our assistance. But what the hell, five years after this war is over people will forget and we will be back to liberating people again.

There's no denying that we took our Saddam and gave the Iraqi's an opportuntiy at Democracy....Saddam wasn't a threat to the USA at the time, but ok. I would hope that even you could agree that the war has been handled completely wrong, hence the lack of a good plan....it's been proven that huge piles of money have been squandered, our troops don't have the neccessary supplies, and the most highly-trained military in the world has been losing to a bunch of rag-heads with cold-war-era AK47's....this whole deal has been a complete mess, and there hasn't even been a single WMD found.

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

So you're going to base the present war on something that happened in 1988?

Why is it going back just over a decade to justify the 2003 Iraq war is unacceptable but going back 50 years to justify Iran's hate is ok?

While we're at it, haven't you brought up the Crusades before, conveniently stopping short of the Moors?

[Topless T/A]

Why is it going back just over a decade to justify the 2003 Iraq war is unacceptable but going back 50 years to justify Iran's hate is ok?

While we're at it, haven't you brought up the Crusades before, conveniently stopping short of the Moors?


No I'm quilty of any Crusades discussion :lol:

Justify Iran's hate of what?...I bet Iran turns in the next Iraq for us.

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

There's no denying that we took our Saddam and gave the Iraqi's an opportuntiy at Democracy....Saddam wasn't a threat to the USA at the time, but ok. I would hope that even you could agree that the war has been handled completely wrong, hence the lack of a good plan....it's been proven that huge piles of money have been squandered, our troops don't have the neccessary supplies, and the most highly-trained military in the world has been losing to a bunch of rag-heads with cold-war-era AK47's....this whole deal has been a complete mess, and there hasn't even been a single WMD found.

The biggest thing handled wrong about this war was the assumption made about Iraqis' desire to be free. Everything EVERYTHING else could be said about every war.

Again, it isn't our military losing to a bunch of ragheads. Our military goes into battle and wins. It is Iraqis losing to a bunch of ragheads.

But it is politically incorrect to stereotype even when it it accurate to do so. So let's keep blaming our president. That's easy and nobody gets called a bigot or a racist when they do that. Gawd forbid.

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

Justify Iran's hate of what?....

I'm gonna let you think about that for a bit. If you get stuck google "Shah of Iran" and then search this board for arguments justifying Iran's hate for America.

[Scott]

So you're going to base the present war on something that happened in 1988? Well in that case I think the south needs to rise up, go buy some muskets, and lets go get those silly Union soldiers! Then after that, maybe England can go sink the Bismark for the second time, and after that we can finally go after Hitler once and for all!

And I hardly believe that the existence of some EMPTY chemical warheads (probrably also from the 1980's) is enough to go to war...we all know that the term "WMD" was used primarily by the Bush adm. to point at the presence of larger, more powerful weapons anyways.....weapons that don't exist.


You said this right ?



How is it common knowledge that Saddam had WMD's when nobody had any proof of it?


I answered it, don't hate and go off track because you have no other effective rebuttal.

You libs are all jokes and finger pointing until you get something to read that opposes your rhetoric. Then it is back to anything but the topic at hand. Again it is like watching Obama and Billary debate. As soon as they hear something they do not want to discuss the mudflinging comes out.

[moldyhands]

Why is it going back just over a decade to justify the 2003 Iraq war is unacceptable but going back 50 years to justify Iran's hate is ok?
because the WMD that hussein HAD was purchased from us and had a shelf life. the shelf life had expired and those weapons were useless.

as for "justifying" iran's hate. i've never justified it. that's a woman's argument in a relationship chuck. you know the difference between understanding and justifying something. i'm not making excuses for iran, but you have to understand them beyond the neo-con bullshit, "they hate us for our freedom".

bush first defended the war with the WMD argument. then he justified it that it would fight terrorism on their turf instead of ours. then when that didn't work, he justified it by saying we were setting iraq free. his purpose for the war has changed as each argument has fallen to criticism. you have to be a blind supporter to not see this war was bullshit from the start.

i expect it from scott's type chuck, but i know you better. you're just trying to stir the pot.

[Topless T/A]

I'm gonna let you think about that for a bit. If you get stuck google "Shah of Iran" and then search this board for arguments justifying Iran's hate for America.

I know you were talking about hate for America, but I don't see anyone justifying it here.....

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

because the WMD that hussein HAD was purchased from us and had a shelf life. the shelf life had expired and those weapons were useless.

as for "justifying" iran's hate. i've never justified it. that's a woman's argument in a relationship chuck. you know the difference between understanding and justifying something. i'm not making excuses for iran, but you have to understand them beyond the neo-con bullshit, "they hate us for our freedom".

bush first defended the war with the WMD argument. then he justified it that it would fight terrorism on their turf instead of ours. then when that didn't work, he justified it by saying we were setting iraq free. his purpose for the war has changed as each argument has fallen to criticism. you have to be a blind supporter to not see this war was bullshit from the start.

i expect it from scott's type chuck, but i know you better. you're just trying to stir the pot.

Dammit Moldy, I gotta get some work done. I hope I still have the fire in me tonight.

Have a great day everybody...even those of you who are wrong! :)

[PPGMD]

because the WMD that hussein HAD was purchased from us and had a shelf life. the shelf life had expired and those weapons were useless.

The weapons we sold to Iraq were used or destroyed long before 1998. Other countries sold Iraq the materials and equipment to make their own weapons. Iraq had enough material to create enough chemical weapons to kill the world 3 times over, most of those materials have very very long shelf lives, most of that is still unaccounted for.

Also most medical equipment with a little bit of knowledge can be used to make chemical weapons, it's all in the ingredients.

[Topless T/A]

The weapons we sold to Iraq were used or destroyed long before 1998. Other countries sold Iraq the materials and equipment to make their own weapons. Iraq had enough material to create enough chemical weapons to kill the world 3 times over, most of those materials have very very long shelf lives, most of that is still unaccounted for.

Also most medical equipment with a little bit of knowledge can be used to make chemical weapons, it's all in the ingredients.

sooooo why didn't we find any of that stuff?

[PPGMD]

sooooo why didn't we find any of that stuff?

That's a good question, we know it exists, Iraq declared it in earlier reports. The inspectors never found it.

Part of me thinks that the Soviet style production system happened. Scientists used Y lbs materials to create Z lbs amount of weapons. In reality they screwed up and used 10Y lbs.

[Topless T/A]

That's a good question, we know it exists, Iraq declared it in earlier reports. The inspectors never found it.

Part of me thinks that the Soviet style production system happened. Scientists used Y lbs materials to create Z lbs amount of weapons. In reality they screwed up and used 10Y lbs.

so you don't think that it's questionable that we fought a war over WMD's that we can't find?...I mean will you be willing to acknowledge that they don't exist then?

[PPGMD]

so you don't think that it's questionable that we fought a war over WMD's that we can't find?...I mean will you be willing to acknowledge that they don't exist then?

Who said it was exclusively over WMDs. That was the main reason, but if you listened to his State of the Union it wasn't his only reason.

Also we didn't know that they didn't exist until we got into their, they still are missing millions of pounds of material to make chemical agents. For all we know was that it was made, and just transfered to other countries before the war. We have found traces of the weapons, we just can't find the weapons.

[Notladstyle]

No I'm quilty of any Crusades discussion :lol:

Justify Iran's hate of what?...I bet Iran turns in the next Iraq for us.

Iran will seriously fuck up a US invasion force in a straight up conflict. Unlike the broke 2nd world nation with no standing army and no real military reserve bush likes to pick on, Iran has the money, technology, missiles, and a standing army to meet our army at the border and send them packing.

And if untrained civilian "insurgents" playing a strategy of guerrilla warfare can cause as much damage as they have in Iraq - I can only imagine the carnage a properly trained and fully armed regime of solders playing the same tactics will do in Iran.

[Topless T/A]

Who said it was exclusively over WMDs. That was the main reason, but if you listened to his State of the Union it wasn't his only reason.

Also we didn't know that they didn't exist until we got into their, they still are missing millions of pounds of material to make chemical agents. For all we know was that it was made, and just transfered to other countries before the war. We have found traces of the weapons, we just can't find the weapons.

that's my point though....why are you going to go to war over something that you don't know even exists?...our economy is in the toilet, the world hates us even more than they did before, and thousands of families have been permanently fucked up over nothing.

[PPGMD]

Iran will seriously fuck up a US invasion force in a straight up conflict. Unlike the broke 2nd world nation with no standing army and no real military reserve bush likes to pick on, Iran has the money, technology, missiles, and a standing army to meet our army at the border and send them packing.

And if untrained civilian "insurgents" playing a strategy of guerrilla warfare can cause as much damage as they have in Iraq - I can only imagine the carnage a properly trained and fully armed regime of solders playing the same tactics will do in Iran.

Actually Iran has about the same level of military power Iraq has in 1991, it would be difficult, but they would get run over in a traditional war. Also those trained fighters, yeah we are already killing them in Iraq, Iran sent them over to help kill the great Satan.

Finally you are under estimating the Iranian people. A good 50% of the country wants to throw off the Islamic leadership, they attempt to do it via the electoral process, but their newpapers and party leaders keep getting arrested and shut down. This isn't a small ground of Kurds in the northern end of the country, but half of Tehran.

[PPGMD]

that's my point though....why are you going to go to war over something that you don't know even exists?...our economy is in the toilet, the world hates us even more than they did before, and thousands of families have been permanently fucked up over nothing.

That wasn't the only reason. We knew the materials existed, Iraq couldn't account for them in their reports, they were just being compliant enough with the UN to gain favor (the weapon inspectors would show up for a surprise inspection and wouldn't be let in for a couple of hours), and intelligence reports showed that they were continuing the production, or at least the development of WMDs.

Our economy would be in the toilet whether we went to war or not, Federal spending makes people feel better with work programs but it doesn't fix a bear market.

The world has always hated us, just sometimes they mask it more then they do. Go to Japan and when asked say your an American, gauge the reactions. Now go there and say your Canadian eh? I would be that you will get a better response particularly out of older Japanese outside of Tokyo.

Now families getting fucked over, Iraqi or American? The Iraqis are better off now then they were under Saddam, and in a few years they will be much better off. American families, yes we have lost quite a few solders, but we loose soldiers on training exercises. Also all those fighters attacking our men, many are from groups that we be considering attacks on America and American interests. Would you rather be fighting them in the malls in middle America, our border is pourus enough that it's easy to get into the country, and the smaller groups don't have the money of Bin Ladens group so their attack vector would be limited.

[moldyhands]

Iran will seriously fuck up a US invasion force in a straight up conflict. Unlike the broke 2nd world nation with no standing army and no real military reserve bush likes to pick on, Iran has the money, technology, missiles, and a standing army to meet our army at the border and send them packing.

And if untrained civilian "insurgents" playing a strategy of guerrilla warfare can cause as much damage as they have in Iraq - I can only imagine the carnage a properly trained and fully armed regime of solders playing the same tactics will do in Iran.
lawl at you. are you serious? they said the same thing about iraq. remember, the iraqi army was one of the largest armies in the world before the first gulf war and had just finished 10 years of stalemate fighting against iran. and we trounced them.

with our air superiority, army vs. army fighting is something we can destroy anyone with. possibly china is the only country that could stand a chance.

[Scott]

that's my point though....why are you going to go to war over something that you don't know even exists?.


Because of the possibility that it does exist ? And OTHERS THAN THE U.S. has intel saying it existed. This is the problem with your thinking as well as many others, being reactionary after someone hits us with something takes a far greater toll than hitting them first and being safe about it. Why wait ? All this tinfoil hat crap about Bush lied, wanted to finish for his father (which has been disproved), etc. is such crap. What about all the other countries that agreed the material did exist ? So it was not there does crying about it change that ? Is there proof it was there and in large quantities as PPGMD said ? Yes. You guys just don't want to hear or believe that. Your mind is made up.



our economy is in the toilet, the world hates us even more than they did before, and thousands of families have been permanently fucked up over nothing.


As said the economy was going to the toilet either way. Would the subprime mortgage crisis have still happened without the war ? The dollar devalued ? Yep.

The world hates us ? First off who cares and many in the world have always hated us and always will no matter what. Envy is a powerful thing. Secondly did you not hear Sarkozy's speech propping up the U.S. ? When it the heck was the last time France said anything nice about us ? This is just one of many examples, problem is to many focus on the negative.

Thousands of families fucked up ? I am assuming you are talking about servicemen and servicewomen deaths ? One death is to many but the last I checked it was a elective service not to mention many are proud and pledge to defend America to their death if necessary. Something some of you guys will never be able to fathom.

This has gone to the Bush admin wrong 935 times to showing otherwise ( with little debate afterwords ) to theology of why or why not we should have went into Iraq.

If I have said it once I have said it a million times, pandering to everyone else and trying to be PC to the world will be our demise.

[25psi]

lawl at you. are you serious? they said the same thing about iraq. remember, the iraqi army was one of the largest armies in the world before the first gulf war and had just finished 10 years of stalemate fighting against iran. and we trounced them.

with our air superiority, army vs. army fighting is something we can destroy anyone with. possibly china is the only country that could stand a chance.

Yeah, while it is bogged down being a police force right now, our military is still the best in the world at fighting conventional wars.



Iran has a fleet of F14 Tomcats...we have F22 Raptors.

[Iroc Joe]

Bush Sr. stopped from going in to get Saddam it was not unfinished family business or him not being able to do it. I could post a link to the Time magazine article where he talked about this but Time removed it from their database, weird eh ? Damn media and its non slanted-nesss.

Heck it would have been much easier then than now so I wish he would have. Why some can not get over this conspiracy that Bush was going no matter what is beyond me, you have been given avenue to go check within this thread, problem is you do not want to listen. Or for Moldy, " Bush is wrong on everything" so why bother.


I agree with your first statement, George Bush had an opportunity to go into Iraq and get Saddam but he decided not to. Why? He was continuing a long standing US foreign policy precendent, one that predated even Reagan (Carter, anyone?) - stability in the Middle East.

BUT, I disagree with your assessment that George W. Bush was not planning to remove Hussein even before 9/11. Here is why:

Rewind to September 1992-

Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney champions the first Defense Planning Guidance in the post-Cold War era written by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz and Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby who studied under Wolfowitz at Yale from '70-'72. Wolfowitz, of course, is one of the leading neo-conservative thinkers in the country, studying under Allan Bloom at Cornell and Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago. In the 1992 DPG draft, Wolfowitz advocated a radical departure of American foreign policy advocating the assertion of the United States' unparalleled military and economic power to promote American ideals of democracy and free trade around the world. He also stressed preemptive action against terrorism and those who try to obtain weapons of mass destruction, citing the Cold War policy of containment as a "relic." Among other, uhh...salient points he promoted unilateral action, stressing the right to exert our massive military force to promote "good." George H.W. Bush dismisses the DPG, he thinks it is way too radical. Wolfowitz et al. are pissed off at Bush for not promoting their neo-conservative ideals. Wolfowitz is on record as saying Bush should have invaded Iraq and overthrown Hussein.

Fast forward to September 2002 -

George W. Bush releases his National Security Strategy of the United States of America. In the preamble, Bush stresses the United States need to take charge as the sole remaining super power, in promoting democracy and free trade amongst all oppressive nations. He stresses the United States need to act preemptively to fight terrorism and prevent them from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. He then assures the American people he supports a policy of multilateral cooperation, as had been the norm under 8 years of Clinton, but he sneaks this phrase in: "Coalitions of the willing could augment the permanent institutions [UN, NATO, WTO, etc.]" Oh, look, unilateral action.
These points sound familiar, yes? Hmm. Vice President Dick Cheney, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and Chief of Staff to Vice President I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby....

Of course, I condensed the points of Wolfowitz's 1992 DPG draft and Bush's 2002 National Security Strategy for time reasons. There are other points that are blatantly obvious. Moreover, I also didn't include the Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, Rumsfeld, Kristol etc. little group the Policy for the New American Century, a neo-con think tank if you will, which has been instrumental in the formulation of their policy.

The point is, George W. Bush is being lead by neo-conservatives in a way his father would not allow. The neo-cons wanted Hussein ousted in 1991, and September 11, 2001 was a convenient springboard of neo-conservative idealism.