News What if Bush and Cheney ARE delusional?

[Ivan Seeking]

Bad Analogy, first of all. Iraq did not smack us in the back of the head, in fact it had nothing to do with 9-11.

But that is a lie perpetuated by the Bush admin until long after we all knew better. Were they simply too delusional to see this, or were they lying?

As for the point made earlier re my quote and Cheney: Who sold the war to Congress? Cheney has been the loudest voice of all from day one. And as for those Democrats who yielded to the national fervor that Bush et al leveraged to their own advantage, those dems acted as cowards. When the chips were down, they tucked their tails and bowed to the threat of being called a traitor by an admin out of control. When we needed them most, they failed us. And Hillary is at the top of the list.

“I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”

- Barack Obama, October, 2002
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/

Now that's a brave and honest man who was 100% correct.

 

[Cyrus]

Hindsight is 20/20. We believed they were a significant threat at the time of the invasion. So no, not a bad analogy at all. If you sincerely believe someone behind you just smacked you in the head, are you going to ask a third party whether you should defend yourself?

No, its NOT hindsight. People at the time were saying this was a load of crap and were silenced.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm sorry. But official government documentation (which I provided twice) proves you wrong. Whether you choose to believe otherwise despite what is on your screen is not my problem. Read the 2 links I gave if you want to answer your own question.

I guess you must have been asleep during the start of the war when EVERYONE, was shouting WMDs. So, was Colin Powell at the UN holding viles of freedom dust?

Yes, there were other reason for war, but those were not the primary reason for the war. So don't sit there and BS us all by making it out that we really went to war because of freedom.

 

[Cyrus]

Like I said, your exaggeration is a problem. If you want to hold Bush accountable for a lot of the problems in the government right now, that's ok. There are issues I have too with the current admin. But to consistently point him out as the one with the smoking gun is not correct.

This never ending slew of problems is under Bush's watch. Its not an isolated incident, it is a constant problem with this adiministration. They can't do a damn thing right to save their lives. At this point, it is time to blame bush and kick his ass out of office.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No personal attacks on other members please.

 

[Cyrus]

I edited it out,

Republicans make my blood boil.

 

[GTdan]

No, its NOT hindsight. People at the time were saying this was a load of crap and were silenced.

Sure, people were saying it. But apparently not enough were saying it because the Resolution WAS PASSED BY BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS. It IS hindsight. Yeah, sure, maybe you were the one of the people with the voice of reason on the Iraq war, whatever. Whether or not there were people who disagreed with the war is not in question. The fact is, the majority of politicians and citizens believed in this war at the time.

I'll make it easy and answer the question for you. If you really believed someone had attacked you, you wouldn't be asking a third party for permission to defend yourself. And you know this, that's why you are avoiding the question.

I guess you must have been asleep during the start of the war when EVERYONE, was shouting WMDs. So, was Colin Powell at the UN holding viles of freedom dust?

Yes, there were other reason for war, but those were not the primary reason for the war. So don't sit there and BS us all by making it out that we really went to war because of freedom.

Nope, I was wide awake. Do I really need to explain this more? The media is NOT a better source than an OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT. This resolution was read and passed by Congress. Maybe you and many other citizens were fooled into thinking it was all WMD by reading too much of the Washington Post. But politicians knew the deal, and they jumped right into it. Or do you intend to tell me that word of mouth and the tv is a more credible source?

And apparently you didn't read the links I gave or the posts I made. I never gave you a primary reason for the war. I very directly stated there were many reasons and no primary reason for it.

 

[Cyrus]

I'll make it easy and answer the question for you. If you really believed someone had attacked you, you wouldn't be asking a third party for permission to defend yourself. And you know this, that's why you are avoiding the question.

Wow, you just don't get it do you? Iraq never attacked us. That's why it was called a preemptive war.

But politicians knew the deal, and they jumped right into it.

No, they didnt. Turn on the news lately? BOTH republicans and deomcrats are saying they would NOT have supported the war had they known the amount of misinformation they were given thanks to Bush. I am not saying its excusible, they were asleep at the wheel, BUTT they were not given the facts straight either.

 

[Cyrus]

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq"
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations
Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement

1- Saddam was interfearing with weapons inspects to keep Iran thinking they had chemical weapons.

2- OOPS, we already know that one was BS!

3- brutal opression is not a reason to go to war.

4- Again, largely FALSE after 1992.

5- Wow, your going to war from something in 93' don't you think your a little bit late in acting??

6- FALSE - Al Qaida was not in Iraq prior to the war.

7- OOPs that's wrong too, you can't give WMDs to terrorists when you don't have any!


Sooo, it seems to me that WMDs were the primary reason. Show me the other reasons then Dan...I can't see what's not there.


Iraq and Saddam were contained, he posed no more a threat to us than before. In fact, Iraq is muchh much WORSE off now than it was with Saddam.

So, from your list, I see 2 main reasons. (1) WMDS and (2) bringing freedom. I thought we already told you that (2) is not a valid reason for war and (1) was proven to be a load of bull-****.

 

[edward]

Sure, people were saying it. But apparently not enough were saying it because the Resolution WAS PASSED BY BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS.

True but they voted based on cherry picked evidence provided by an administration who started planning the invasion of Iraq the day they took office.

People expect their leaders to provide them with straight forward truth. Instead we received lies, exagerations, and testimony from Iraqis who hadn't been in Iraq in years. We watched Collin Powell's presentation at the United Nations with the faith that we were being presented with a truthful situation by our leaders. We were not.

You can't keep falling back on the, " Congress voted in favor of the invasion" excuse. They were given the same bogus information the the American people were.

Collin Powell has admitted that the WMD evidence was false, why can't you?

Appearing on Meet the Press, Powell acknowledged--finally!--that he and the Bush administration misled the nation about the WMD threat posed by Iraq before the war. Specifically, he said that he was wrong when he appeared before the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, and alleged that Iraq had developed mobile laboratories to produce biological weapons. That was one of the more dramatic claims he and the administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq. (Remember the drawings he displayed.) Yet Powell said on MTP, "it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading." Powell did not spell it out, but the main source for this claim was an engineer linked to the Iraqi National Congress, the exile group led by Ahmed Chalabi, who is now part of the Iraqi Governing Council.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=1442

 

[Astronuc]

Hindsight is 20/20. We believed they were a significant threat at the time of the invasion.

Hindsight is 20/20, except for those who still don't get. We did not believe they[Iraq] were a significant threat. Certainly those who were uniformed would have believed. In the base of Bush and Cheney, they were in a position to know that Iraq was not a threat, and perhaps they did in which case they deliberately falsified evidence and lied/mislead Congress. Otherwise they are incompetent, which based on their handling of Iraq certainly seems to be the case, or they are depraved and demented.

The current situation was forseen by many (including myself) who were critics of the war and of Bush in the first place. Some of us do pay attention to the rest of the world, and do obtain much better information than provided by the media or government in the US.

Scott Ritter was heavily criticised because he insisted that there were no WMD. On the other hand, since the US (Reagan Administration) supplied the technology and some materials for bio and chemical weapons, as well as supporting Iraq in the Iraq/Iran war, perhaps some in the Bush administration(some of the same people from Reagan's admin) may have believed they would find bio/chem weapons.

As for democracy, clearly Bush stated that as a goal. The actions of the Bush administration would indicate otherwise, by virtue of the US influence (or interference) in the elections.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6899

Report of Covert Aid to Iraqi Candidates
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0717-04.htm , by Douglas Jehl, David E. Sanger

http://www.ips-dc.org/comment/Bennis/tp36elections.htm

Assessing the Iraqi Elections’ Impact on Terrorism and Insurgency
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?issue_id=3570

 

[Cyrus]

Here I found this from one of my old pots.. Watch this video and keep your eyes and ears open.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7292279546899698502&q=bob+wright

Watch the second half. It answers allllllllllll your questions and is a VERY good source.

 

[GTdan]

Wow, you just don't get it do you? Iraq never attacked us. That's why it was called a preemptive war.

No, they didnt. Turn on the news lately? BOTH republicans and deomcrats are saying they would NOT have supported the war had they known the amount of misinformation they were given thanks to Bush. I am not saying its excusible, they were asleep at the wheel, BUTT they were not given the facts straight either.

Maybe you don't get it. Do you know what the phrase, hindsight is 20/20 means? It was believed there was a direct link between Iraq and Al-Qaida. They were believed to be harboring terrorists and producing WMD. Yes, these claims proved to be false. That doesn't not negate the fact that WE DID BELIEVE THEY WERE INVOLVED. Whether or not they are complaining now after seeing the truth is not my point. Now that I am going to perfectly phrase the question for you, ANSWER IT: Would you or would you not choose to freely defend yourself, if you believed 100% that someone was involved in a plot against you (whether directly or indirectly)?

You have forced me to rephrase it 3 times now. I think we all know what you are avoiding.

1- Saddam was interfearing with weapons inspects to keep Iran thinking they had chemical weapons.

1- Saddam was interfearing with weapons inspects to keep Iran thinking they had chemical weapons.
2- OOPS, we already know that one was BS!
3- brutal opression is not a reason to go to war.
4- Again, largely FALSE after 1992.
5- Wow, your going to war from something in 93' don't you think your a little bit late in acting??
6- FALSE - Al Qaida was not in Iraq prior to the war.
7- OOPs that's wrong too, you can't give WMDs to terrorists when you don't have any!
Sooo, it seems to me that WMDs were the primary reason. Show me the other reasons then Dan...I can't see what's not there.

So you quote 7 different reasons and then tell me there is only 1.
It doesn't matter whether you disagree with 6 out of 7. Congress of 2003 apparently isn't on your side.

And btw, there are much more than the 7 you numbered. You just read the wiki. Read the actual document. Are you cherry picking? Here let me number the reasons that wiki provided. REMEMBER, the document HAS MORE.

1.Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors

-it doesn't matter why. They violated the agreement.

2. Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"

-we believed they had them at the time. It has been proven that Saddam was intending to have them again.

3.Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"

-brutal repression may not be a reason for war to you but it is to Congress.

4.Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"

-It was proven that they had no capability. We didn't know that at the time either. They were definitely willing though.

5.Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War

-It doesn't matter if you disagree with this reason. Congress APPROVED OF THESE REASONS!

6.Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq"

- Yes, this is false. Again, watch your hindsight.

7.Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations

-same as above.

8.Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States

-same as above.

9.The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them

-same as above

10.The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism

-same as above

11.Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement

-Another reason on its own. You may disagree again, but Congress thought it was sufficient.

So you see Cyrus, it doesn't matter AT ALL whether or not you agree or disagree with the Resolution. Congress approved of this resolution and therefore agreed that these were all valid reasons for war. Your continuing denial and constant yelling that WMD was the only reason won't make a difference. You may think they are not valid and most of us will agree that many of the accusations proved to be untrue, but that does not change the fact that these were the REASONS STATED BY OUR GOVERNMENT FOR WAR.

This is why it is called: Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

EDWARD:

I'm afraid you don't understand what I am arguing about. I have already admitted the WMD evidence was false. I stated however, that WMD wasn't the only reason we went to war, it was just the only reason stressed by the media. Cyrus is intent on believing that WMD is the ONLY reason we went to war. I told and am continuing to tell him that he is mistaken and have provided the Iraq War Resolution approved by Congress which clearly states EVERY reason we went to war. This is not debatable. It's an official document. It's fact. It was stated on TV as well. And I have no idea why Cyrus is rambling on about whether the reasons were misplaced or not. That does not take away from the fact that they were the stated reasons for war. Plain and simple.

 

[GTdan]

Hindsight is 20/20, except for those who still don't get. We did not believe they[Iraq] were a significant threat. Certainly those who were uniformed would have believed. In the base of Bush and Cheney, they were in a position to know that Iraq was not a threat, and perhaps they did in which case they deliberately falsified evidence and lied/mislead Congress. Otherwise they are incompetent, which based on their handling of Iraq certainly seems to be the case, or they are depraved and demented.

The current situation was forseen by many (including myself) who were critics of the war and of Bush in the first place. Some of us do pay attention to the rest of the world, and do obtain much better information than provided by the media or government in the US.

Scott Ritter was heavily criticised because he insisted that there were no WMD. On the other hand, since the US (Reagan Administration) supplied the technology and some materials for bio and chemical weapons, as well as supporting Iraq in the Iraq/Iran war, perhaps some in the Bush administration(some of the same people from Reagan's admin) may have believed they would find bio/chem weapons.

As for democracy, clearly Bush stated that as a goal. The actions of the Bush administration would indicate otherwise, by virtue of the US influence (or interference) in the elections.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6899

Report of Covert Aid to Iraqi Candidates
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0717-04.htm , by Douglas Jehl, David E. Sanger

http://www.ips-dc.org/comment/Bennis/tp36elections.htm

Assessing the Iraqi Elections’ Impact on Terrorism and Insurgency
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?issue_id=3570

Look, if you want to believe that the admin knew it was all false beforehand, go ahead. There's no proof for it but go ahead.

Note that when I say WE, I am generalizing. As I have CLEARLY mentioned, yes, there were open critics of the plan for invasion. Yet the majority of our representatives and the public approved. This is what I mean when I say we. If you want to exclude yourself from that majority, go right ahead. I have no problem with that. But apparently, far too many were fooled.

 

[Cyrus]

Maybe you don't get it. Do you know what the phrase, hindsight is 20/20 means? It was believed there was a direct link between Iraq and Al-Qaida. They were believed to be harboring terrorists and producing WMD. Yes, these claims proved to be false. That doesn't not negate the fact that WE DID BELIEVE THEY WERE INVOLVED. Whether or not they are complaining now after seeing the truth is not my point. Now that I am going to perfectly phrase the question for you, ANSWER IT: Would you or would you not choose to freely defend yourself, if you believed 100% that someone was involved in a plot against you (whether directly or indirectly)?

I am not going to answer your question because its WRONG! We were not 100% sure that someone was plotting against us!

Maybe YOUUUUUUUUUUU think that's what we thought, but its NOT the case.

Watch the video I sent you. I'll send you more later.


GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD, the congress did not get the full truth to make their decision.

 

[GTdan]

I am not going to answer your question because its WRONG! We were not 100% sure that someone was plotting against us!

Maybe YOUUUUUUUUUUU think that's what we thought, but its NOT the case.

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD, the congress did not get the full truth to make their decision.

So if so many people were not sure of it, how is it possible that Congress allowed it all to happen hmmmmmmmmm? Don't give that BS about he tricked everybody because everyone just told me Bush was a moron. A moron can't trick an entire nation.

The majority of the public and its representatives were convinced. As I just said to Astronuc, you can exclude yourself from that majority if you wish. That's fine with me.

And I never disputed that Congress didn't get the full truth. Certainly WMD and terrorism were not true. But Saddam's violation of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, the repression of the civilian population, the 1998 Liberation Act, etc ALL were true. All of these things, NOT just WMD, were the justifications for war.

 

[mathwonk]

It is hard to believe anyone still thinks the bush administration actually thought there were WMD in Iraq. But polls show many people still believe not only that, but still believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11.

On the one hand Bush does seem that dumb, but the evidence shows now that even he knew better, and that he not only ignored, but lied about the evidence he had.

And in my opinion anyone in the public who believed Bush that there really were WMD even though Hans Blick said otherwise after searching for them, is either a little slow, or VERY gullible.

How can this discussion still be going on? Is this a joke?

 

[Cyrus]

But Saddam's violation of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, the repression of the civilian population, the 1998 Liberation Act, etc ALL were true. All of these things, NOT just WMD, were the justifications for war.

Who CARESSSSSSSSSSS? THOSE are not enough reason for war! Cant you understand this? They were tacked onto the main reason for war WMDS. Why don't you read through your full version and COUNT the number of times its related to WMDs. JESUS CHRISTTTTTTTTT.

Your a wall...even the majority of the American public and the MILITARY think Iraq is a failure. For god's sakes, go get some good information.


Q: Why the hell do you love Bush so much and support this war so blindly?

 

[Cyrus]

Watch this, and LEARN.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4926293608118312619&q=thomas+ricks

 

[Art]

So if so many people were not sure of it, how is it possible that Congress allowed it all to happen hmmmmmmmmm? Don't give that BS about he tricked everybody because everyone just told me Bush was a moron. A moron can't trick an entire nation.

The majority of the public and its representatives were convinced. As I just said to Astronuc, you can exclude yourself from that majority if you wish. That's fine with me.

The majority of the public and its representatives were convinced because
a) They weren't privvy to the secret intelligence reports available only to Bush and his gang and so Congress and Joe Public had to base their judgement on the summary papers and selective intel provided by Bush and Co.
B) Their judgement was flawed because they were lied to and mislead in the summary papers provided by Bush and Co.
C) The majority now say if they had been in possession of the true facts their judgement would have been different.

So let's entertain the remote possibility that Bush thought the information he provided was true. Even if this was the case subsequent events has proven him wrong and on an issue as large as this and with the deadly repercusions for hundreds of thousands of people which ensued the only honourable recourse for Bush and his warmongering allies is to resign.

If there was a genuine threat in the future how many people would believe this current admin? So Bush is now a major threat to US security. He is a quintessential example of the boy who cried wolf.

 

[edward]

EDWARD:

I'm afraid you don't understand what I am arguing about. I have already admitted the WMD evidence was false. I stated however, that WMD wasn't the only reason we went to war, it was just the only reason stressed by the media. Cyrus is intent on believing that WMD is the ONLY reason we went to war. I told and am continuing to tell him that he is mistaken and have provided the Iraq War Resolution approved by Congress which clearly states EVERY reason we went to war. This is not debatable. It's an official document. It's fact. It was stated on TV as well. And I have no idea why Cyrus is rambling on about whether the reasons were misplaced or not. That does not take away from the fact that they were the stated reasons for war. Plain and simple.

Actually I do know what you are arguing about. If the evidence presented to congress had been all of your; Saddam did this, Saddam didn't do that trivia , we would never had invaded Iraq.

There was no Al Qaida in Iraq and we knew it.

But the intelligence analysts in the US and Britain on whose work the president's claim was supposedly based say the connections are tangential at best, and the available evidence falls far short of proving a secret relationship between Baghdad and Osama bin Laden. One intelligence source in Washington, who has seen CIA material on the link, described the case as "soft" and "squishy".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,885115,00.html

 

[GTdan]

Who CARESSSSSSSSSSS? THOSE are not enough reason for war! Cant you understand this? They were tacked onto the main reason for war WMDS. Why don't you read through your full version and COUNT the number of times its related to WMDs. JESUS CHRISTTTTTTTTT.

Your a wall...even the majority of the American public and the MILITARY think Iraq is a failure. For god's sakes, go get some good information.

Ok, let's take this slow Cyrus.

#1: When on any post in this thread have I said that Iraq was a success and that the WMD issue was for real?

#2: What does the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 have to do with WMD?

#3: What does the "brutal repression of the civilian population" have to do with WMD?

#4: What does the violation of the 1991 cease fire conditions have to do with WMD?

#5: What does the supposed link between Iraq and Al-Qaida have to do with WMD?

#6: What does the harboring and support of "other anti-US terrorist organizations" have to do with WMD?

#7: What does the enforcement of various UN Security Council Resolutions have to do with WMD?

#8: What does the replacement of the Saddam regime have to do with WMD?

#9: What does "restoration of peace and security to the Persian Gulf" have to do with WMD?

I'm not asking whether you think these justifications are bogus or whether you think they are good enough reasons. You said everything relates to WMD in the original document and now I want you to show it.

 

[GTdan]

The majority of the public and its representatives were convinced because
a) They weren't privvy to the secret intelligence reports available only to Bush and his gang and so Congress and Joe Public had to base their judgement on the summary papers and selective intel provided by Bush and Co.
B) Their judgement was flawed because they were lied to and mislead in the summary papers provided by Bush and Co.
C) The majority now say if they had been in possession of the true facts their judgement would have been different.

So let's entertain the remote possibility that Bush thought the information he provided was true. Even if this was the case subsequent events has proven him wrong and on an issue as large as this and with the deadly repercusions for hundreds of thousands of people which ensued the only honourable recourse for Bush and his warmongering allies is to resign.

If there was a genuine threat in the future how many people would believe this current admin? So Bush is now a threat to US security. He is a quintessential example of the boy who cried wolf.

Ok, so Bush is freakin mastermind then? Well which is he? A moron or an evil mastermind? You want to entertain the possibility that Bush was in possession of the real facts. But not all the justifications for war were lies. That's what I keep trying to tell Cyrus. Saddams actual UN violations, the civilian condition, bla, bla bla. Those things really were true. How is this so difficult to understand?

EDWARD:

See, now you are jumping to conclusions. You don't know that. You CAN'T know that because it's a hypothetical scenario.

 

[Cyrus]

From your white house link:

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possesses and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

I am not going to paste any more paragraphs from your source. You need to learn how to read man. Literally, almost every damn paragraph in your source for the reasons of war mentions WMDs.

I guess its just the media elite making it about WMDs, rightttttttttttttttt. BULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL SHhhhhhhh!ttttt

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

You fall for Bush's lies hook, line and sinker. You're a lost hope. I am not going to enligthen you anymore to the truth that is OBVIOUS to anyone with half a brain.


Bye,

 

[Art]

Ok, so Bush is freakin mastermind then? Well which is he? A moron or an evil mastermind? You want to entertain the possibility that Bush was in possession of the real facts. But not all the justifications for war were lies. That's what I keep trying to tell Cyrus. Saddams actual UN violations, the civilian condition, bla, bla bla. Those things really were true. How is this so difficult to understand?

Actually I think Bush is a muppet controlled by Cheney's hand up his ass but that's by the by I haven't made any comment on whether Bush is a moron or an evil mastermind. I have explained however whichever eventuality is true, or even if there is another no-one has thought of yet, doesn't change the fact his position is now untenable as he has lost all credibility and so has become a major security risk to the US. So instead of creating strawmen why not address what I actually said and either agree with my conclusions or argue against them citing reasons otherwise it will appear your only real aim here is to troll.

 

[Astronuc]

On the other hand,

Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html
October 11, 2000
The Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate
Wake Chapel at Wake Forest University at Winston-Salem, North Carolina

He certainly had something on his mind.

And then former Secretary of Treasury mentioned that at the first cabinet meeting, the primary consideration was Iraq - well before 9/11.

So it would appear from Bush's own mouth that he was contemplating how to get Saddam. How many other dictators has Bush gone after? How many dictators does he and his administration support/tolerate?

At the very least, Bush is incurious. Bush is in a position to know and demand the facts, but it would appear he doesn't want to know the truth if it conflicts with his limited view of the world. Bush may be more in denial of reality than delusional, which would be consistent with alcoholism or drug abuse.

 

[denverdoc]

This was planned well before 911. That we know from multiple sources.

The other issue with going to war was our lap dog press. But did they get snookered! I considered myself reasonably informed on the issues as I had the time and opportunity to read and listen to quite a lot of both US alternative media and world press. And many things were known THEN when Colin Powell addressed the UN that obviously contradicted what he said. I think Congress should also be ashamed of itself for buying into the hype, hysteria and chest thumping.

PS: (If for no other reason than that Obama did not, he has my tentative vote on the grounds of a cooler head sees solutions where others may not).

 

[GTdan]

From your white house link:

Bye,

Goodjob not answering anyone of my questions.

Just to prove to everyone else that not all of them mentioned WMD.

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

There you go. Have a nice day Cyrus.

Actually I think Bush is a muppet controlled by Cheney's hand up his ass but that's by the by I haven't made any comment on whether Bush is a moron or an evil mastermind. I have explained however whichever eventuality is true, or even if there is another no-one has thought of yet, doesn't change the fact his position is now untenable as he has lost all credibility and so has become a major security risk to the US. So instead of creating strawmen why not address what I actually said and either agree with my conclusions or argue against them citing reasons otherwise it will appear your only real aim here is to troll.

*sighs*. You can find the answers to your post sprawled across this freaking thread. I consistently explained that there is no proof of Bush actually deliberately misleading anyone, or else he would have been impeached a long time ago. Not to mentioned that I JUST EXPLAINED to you that NOT ALL THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR WAR WERE LIES EITHER, in response to your post. Oh, but wait. Maybe you want me to answer a what-if question. Sure, let's entertain it then. If Bush deliberately mislead everyone and selectively chose false evidence to bring us to war, he needs to be booted and yes, it is about time we had a new President anyway. There you go. I hope that you are satisfied that I answered a question completely irrelevant from the debate I having with cyrus. Now stop degrading this into name calling. First racist, now troll. I've never seen such blatant denial of reality and I never even considered it in the Physics Forums. I have supported all statements I have made so far and taken back everything that was proven wrong. But I guess it seems that's not enough. The attitude and arrogance towards simply admitting one statement is shocking.

 

[Art]

*sighs*. You can find the answers to your post sprawled across this freaking thread. I consistently explained that there is no proof of Bush actually deliberately misleading anyone, or else he would have been impeached a long time ago. Not to mentioned that I JUST EXPLAINED to you that NOT ALL THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR WAR WERE LIES EITHER, in response to your post. Oh, but wait. Maybe you want me to answer a what-if question. Sure, let's entertain it then. If Bush deliberately mislead everyone and selectively chose false evidence to bring us to war, he needs to be booted. There you go. I hope that you are satisfied that I answered a question completely irrelevant from the debate I having with cyrus. Now stop degrading this into name calling. First racist, now troll. I've never seen such blatant denial of reality and I never even considered it in the Physics Forums. I have supported all statements I have made so far and taken back everything that was proven wrong. But I guess it seems that's not enough. The attitude and arrogance towards simply admitting one statement is shocking.

I'm not sure what you think your debate with Cyrus has to so with me Perhaps you think you are debating with a collective conciousness.

Anyway. incredibly you somehow seem once again to have missed the point. As I have explained in detail my argument is that irrelevent of whether or not Bush deliberately mislead the US and the rest of the world the fact that with hindsight he was proven wrong in all critical areas necessitates his removal. Not even as a punishment but because his judgement is no longer trusted which makes him a liability to his country. Now do you agree with that or not and if not why not? See it's a simple question.

 

[GTdan]

I'm not sure what you think your debate with Cyrus has to so with me Perhaps you think you are debating with a collective conciousness.

Anyway. incredibly you somehow seem once again to have missed the point. As I have explained in detail my argument is that irrelevent of whether or not Bush deliberately mislead the US and the rest of the world the fact that with hindsight he was proven wrong in all critical areas necessitates his removal. Not even as a punishment but because his judgement is no longer trusted which makes him a liability to his country. Now do you agree with that or not and if not why not? See it's a simple question.

Which I agreed to in the post I just made:

"If Bush deliberately misled everyone and selectively chose false evidence to bring us to war, he needs to be booted and yes, it is about time we had a new President anyway."

In other words, yes I agree with you.