923 Bush administration lies = Iraq war = conspiracy

[GregoryUrich]

The Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of lies that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.

Fully searchable database: http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Search/Default.aspx

Bush Administration's 935 Lies to Iraq War Part 1 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz9Ew1UBBj0

See you tube for:

Senator Dick Durbin speaks on the House Floor concerning FISA and the 935 lies to Iraq war.

Bush Administration's 935 Lies to Iraq War Part 2 of 3

[uk_dave]

But you disagree with 12 of them?

[GregoryUrich]

But you disagree with 12 of them?

Huh?

[Viper Daimao]

what rubbish. Bush's "lies" were being said by clinton and gore in 98. Mistakes are not lies. I can't even see how some of these are lies. In fact a lot are correct. This is beyond weak.

[Reality Believer]

Yes, Bush fabricated or misinterpreted intelligence to go to war. And the point is?

[Dave Rogers]

Politics is the next door along the hall.

Dave

[twinstead]

This is a candidate for the politics forum, I would imagine.

[Walter Ego]

The Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of lies that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.

Agreed Bush&Co. sold the U.S. public a bill a goods and the majority of the public drank the kool-aid but were does conspiracy enter the picture?

[DGM]

The Bush administration includes the House and the Senate right? So they all lied. Where do we go from here? Maybe we can fire them all and start from sratch with a new batch.

BTW Dick Durbin is one of them. Maybe he's lying too.

[GregoryUrich]

Agreed Bush&Co. sold the U.S. public a bill a goods and the majority of the public drank the kool-aid but were does conspiracy enter the picture?

100s of billions of dollars were essentially missappropriated and people died because a group of high level officials mislead the amercian public to serve their own agenda. That counts as a conspiracy and treason in my book.

[twinstead]

100s of billions of dollars were essentially missappropriated and people died because a group of high level officials mislead the amercian public to serve their own agenda. That counts as a conspiracy and treason in my book.

You're not going to get me to defend Bush; I never voted for him and dislike his Administration.

That said, politics is where a detailed analysis of your 'list' needs to be done. From what I can see, there's a lot of ideological bias woven into it and perhaps some clearer eyes need to look at it.

Just saying.

[ktesibios]

100s of billions of dollars were essentially missappropriated and people died because a group of high level officials mislead the amercian public to serve their own agenda. That counts as a conspiracy and treason in my book.

Umm, treason against the United States is defined in Article 3, Section 3 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec3) of the U.S. Constitution. Neither your opinion nor mine have any bearing on that.

I agree with some of the other posters in this thread. This subject would be much better transferred to the Politics sub-forum. It doesn't have much to do with the sort of conspiracy theories this sub-forum is dedicated to.

[SDC]

Huh?

At one point you wrote 923, at another 935 fibs. Pick one or split the difference.

[Walter Ego]

100s of billions of dollars were essentially missappropriated and people died because a group of high level officials mislead the amercian public to serve their own agenda. That counts as a conspiracy and treason in my book.

The key word his is ‘mislead’ which is not the same as lying or conspiring.

My impression is that Bush&Co. actually believed (or wanted to believe) that there were real WMDs in Iraq. The ‘case’ they made was pretty pathetic and it’s no credit to those of the gullible public who bought it. (The same public who is overwhelming against the war now it should be added.)

If Bush genuinely thought we were going to war for good reasons, he was not ‘conspiring’ with anyone to commit a criminal act, he was merely an ideologically driven idiot. The shame is on him but also on his supporters in the U.S. public who allowed themselves to be deceived.

[Viper Daimao]

I wonder how most of these "lies" square with the fact that Saddam was trying to mislead everyone into believing he had WMDs to appear strong to Iran,and that he was just waiting for sanctions to lift before starting the programs up again (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml).

And yes, this should be in politics. There's conspiracy here on the Iraqi side, but no conspiracy theories.

[Dog Town]

This is an old post at SLC forum by FIREFIGHTER01...
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1930&st=20

---Edited for brevity, bad words.

its interesting to see what people said PRIOR to not finding the WMDS.
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm



"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/...s/clinton.iraq/


"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199...ts/clinton.html


"Dear Mr. President: ... We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Sincerely,

Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

Letter to President Clinton
Signed by Senators Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others
October 9, 1998
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Let...in-10-9-98.html




Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998:

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session


America is threatened by an "unholy axis":

"We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security.

We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.

Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998

http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/SOTU98/address.html

http://www.usemb.ee/union98.php3


"Dear Mr. President:

The events of September 11 have highlighted the vulnerability of the United States to determined terrorists. As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al Qaeda, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq.

This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.

The threat from Iraq is real, and it cannot be permanently contained. For as long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Baghdad, he will seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We have no doubt that these deadly weapons are intended for use against the United States and its allies. Consequently, we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later.

Mr. President, all indications are that in the interest of our own national security, Saddam Hussein must be removed from power."

Sincerely,

Congressman Harold Ford (Democrat, Tennessee)
Senator Bob Graham (Democrat, Florida)
Congressman Tom Lantos (Democrat, California)
Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut)


Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas)
Senator Jesse Helms (Republican, North Carolina)
Congressman Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois)
Senator Trent Lott (Republican, Mississippi)
Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona)
Senator Richard Shelby (Republican, Alabama)



Letter to President Bush
December 5, 2001
http://www.house.gov/ford/12_06_01a.htm



September 29, 1998
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/.../980929-in2.htm

[T.A.M.]

The key word his is ‘mislead’ which is not the same as lying or conspiring.

My impression is that Bush&Co. actually believed (or wanted to believe) that there were real WMDs in Iraq. The ‘case’ they made was pretty pathetic and it’s no credit to those of the gullible public who bought it. (The same public who is overwhelming against the war now it should be added.)

If Bush genuinely thought we were going to war for good reasons, he was not ‘conspiring’ with anyone to commit a criminal act, he was merely an ideologically driven idiot. The shame is on him but also on his supporters in the U.S. public who allowed themselves to be deceived.

Well put Walter. I am far from a Bush Fan, or Cheney, but I think one has to be careful in what accusations are thrown around.

I have seen no proof that the intelligence about Iraqi WMDs was fabricated at any level, though I suspect it may have been at lower levels, then submitted as fact/good intelligence to the higher ups.

I also feel that the Bush Admin was so eager to go to war with Saddam, that they bought what ever intelligence promoted their agenda with little if any probing, scrutiny, or doubt.

Once again, we can speculate all we want that the WMD intelligence was "made up" and by whom, but without evidence it is all just speculation.

Bring the EVIDENCE for us to have a look...thats all we ask.

TAM:)

[Mince]

Please prove that Bush didn't actually believe there were WMDs in Iraq, and how did he know? If Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq but still told the American public, et. al., there were, that is lying. But how did Bush know there were no WMDs in Iraq? Had he been there? Had he searched the whole country above ground and below ground? I'm confused.

Thank you.

[HereticHulk]

Wexler Wants Hearings! (http://wexlerwantshearings.com/)

Investigate and impeach!

[StoneRook]

Saddam also made it appear he had WMD's to prevent Iran from invading his country...

So, was Saddam in on it?

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/01/27/saddam.cbs/index.html

[Darth Rotor]

Sadaam also made it appear he had WMD's to prevent Iran from invading his country...

So, was Sadaam in on it?
Of course he was. He was up to his arse in bills for all of those palace renovations, and was being hounded by creditors. You will note that he was hanged. He was executed to keep him quiet, but they didn't do a mob style hit, since they had an ulterior motive.

The public hanging was a message to any others on the inside who might be tempted to talk.

Isn't it obvious? :rolleyes:

DR

[T.A.M.]

So...

You have Iraq's leader promoting the idea that he had WMDs.
You have a US Govt Admin drinking up anything that would promote such an idea.
You have a general public petrified of Terrorism, still reeling over 9/11.

The perfect storm for faulty intelligence to be accepted on face value and moved on, IMO.

TAM:)

[twinstead]

Investigate and impeach!

Irrational, spittle-spewing ideologues ROCK!

[DavidJames]

Many thought Iraq had WMD, there is no doubt about that. My beef is two fold.

1. I expect an administration to perform all possible due diligence before entering a war and committing lives. As is known now, Saddam was bluffing Iran and misread Bush's intentions. The fact that this administration (and the one before it) were ignorant about the dynamics of that part of the middle east is a condemnation of the U.S. governments diplomatic and intelligence policies and actions. If Clinton had invaded for the same reasons as Bush, my opinion wouldn't change.

2. More damaging was the administrations linking Saddam to AQ, OBL and 9/11. This belief was not nearly as widespread as the WMD beliefs. To me, this linkage, if true, would be more important to the justification to go to war then WMD's. If Saddam was linked to AQ and OBL, he could endanger the U.S. without even having WMD's (after all AQ didn't use WMD's to attack the U.S.). There was, to my knowledge, never any substantiated linkage, yet the dots were being connected by Bush and his administration in the build up.

Finally, this does belong in politics.

[Good Lt]

coughPOLITICScough...excuse me.

But to answer briefly, there was no "lie."

Incompetence? Yes. Misinterpretation? Yes. Faulty intel? Yes. Action taken on bad/faulty intel? Yes.

"LIES?" Nope.

In regards to the "proof" cited in the OP, consider:

#1. The "Center for Public Integrity" is funded by George Soros's Open Society Institute. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Public_Integrity#Sources_of_Funding) Not exactly an ideologically neutral individual, foundation or organization.

So consider the source.

#2 - That same source for some reason doesn't include a smattering of Democrats whose rhetoric on Iraq's WMDs was indistinguishable from Bush's since 1998 right up through March 2003. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp)

#3 - Watch this video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ) Argument over.

#4 - Politics. Politics. Politics.

[Myriad]

The Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of lies that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.


I guess I'll vote for somebody else then. Thanks for the heads-up!

Situations like that sure make me appreciate living in a republic in which citizens can alter the government's policies through the democratic process. Thank goodness there's no need to resort to primitive coercive methods like trumped-up conspiracy and treason charges.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[aggle-rithm]

100s of billions of dollars were essentially missappropriated and people died because a group of high level officials mislead the amercian public to serve their own agenda. That counts as a conspiracy and treason in my book.

Good thing we use the Constitution, and not your book.

[Walter Ego]

I also feel that the Bush Admin was so eager to go to war with Saddam, that they bought what ever intelligence promoted their agenda with little if any probing, scrutiny, or doubt.


Yes, Bush was chafing at the bit and cynically used 9-11 as a pretext to invade Iraq using carefully cherry picked and cooked ‘intelligence’ to make his case. Remember that pathetic show-and-tell by Colin Powell at the UN where a few satellite photos of some trucks in Iraq was ‘evidence’ of some kind of mobile chemical weapons lab?

(Hmmm…. Using carefully cherry picked and cooked ‘evidence’ to make a case. Who else do we know who uses that technique?)

[bofors]

I have seen no proof that the intelligence about Iraqi WMDs was fabricated at any level, though I suspect it may have been at lower levels, then submitted as fact/good intelligence to the higher ups.

...

Bring the EVIDENCE for us to have a look...thats all we ask.



Tenet Details Efforts to Justify Invading Iraq
Former CIA Director Says White House Focused on the Idea Long Before 9/11
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 28, 2007; Page A01

...

Although Tenet does not question the threat Saddam Hussein posed or the sincerity of administration beliefs, he recounts numerous efforts by aides to Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to insert "crap" into public justifications for the war. Tenet also describes an ongoing fear within the intelligence community of the administration's willingness to "mischaracterize complex intelligence information."

...

A speech by Cheney in August 2002 "went well beyond what our analysis could support," Tenet writes. The speech charged, among other things, that Hussein had restarted his nuclear program and would "acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon . . . perhaps within a year." Caught off-guard by the remarks, which had not been cleared by the CIA, Tenet says he considered confronting the vice president on the subject but did not."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042700550.html

[bofors]

Published on Saturday, July 20, 2002 in the Boston Globe
Is Iraq a True Threat to the US?
by Scott Ritter

RECENT PRESS reports indicate that planning for war against Iraq has advanced significantly. When combined with revelations about the granting of presidential authority to the CIA for covert operations aimed at eliminating Saddam Hussein, it appears that the United States is firmly committed to a path that will lead toward war with Iraq.

Prior to this occurring, we would do well to reflect on the words of President Abraham Lincoln who, in his Gettysburg Address, defined the essence of why democracies like ours go to war: so ``... that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.''

Does Iraq truly threaten the existence of our nation? If one takes at face value the rhetoric emanating from the Bush administration, it would seem so. According to President Bush and his advisers, Iraq is known to possess weapons of mass destruction and is actively seeking to reconstitute the weapons production capabilities that had been eliminated by UN weapons inspectors from 1991 to 1998, while at the same time barring the resumption of such inspections.

I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.
...

In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld notes that ``the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'' This only reinforces the fact that the case for war against Iraq fails to meet the litmus test for the defense of our national existence so eloquently phrased by President Lincoln.

War should never be undertaken lightly. Our nation's founders recognized this when they penned our Constitution, giving the authority to declare war to Congress and not to the president. Yet on the issue of war with Iraq, Congress remains disturbingly mute.
...

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm

[Viper Daimao]

Many thought Iraq had WMD, there is no doubt about that. My beef is two fold.

1. I expect an administration to perform all possible due diligence before entering a war and committing lives. As is known now, Saddam was bluffing Iran and misread Bush's intentions. The fact that this administration (and the one before it) were ignorant about the dynamics of that part of the middle east is a condemnation of the U.S. governments diplomatic and intelligence policies and actions. If Clinton had invaded for the same reasons as Bush, my opinion wouldn't change.

2. More damaging was the administrations linking Saddam to AQ, OBL and 9/11. This belief was not nearly as widespread as the WMD beliefs. To me, this linkage, if true, would be more important to the justification to go to war then WMD's. If Saddam was linked to AQ and OBL, he could endanger the U.S. without even having WMD's (after all AQ didn't use WMD's to attack the U.S.). There was, to my knowledge, never any substantiated linkage, yet the dots were being connected by Bush and his administration in the build up.

Finally, this does belong in politics.

I disagree. If some dictator is going to pretend to have wmd's, especially with a past history of using them, then we should take them at their word. Trying to convince yourself that they're lying is only going to encourage more of this behavoir.

as for number 2, there were numerous "links" and contact but it didn't look like it amounted to an actual operation relationship. Though I don't think we really wanted to take the chance of that relationship developing when saddam reconstituted his wmd programs as he was planning to do.

[DGM]

Published on Saturday, July 20, 2002 in the Boston Globe
Is Iraq a True Threat to the US?
by Scott Ritter

RECENT PRESS reports indicate that planning for war against Iraq has advanced significantly. When combined with revelations about the granting of presidential authority to the CIA for covert operations aimed at eliminating Saddam Hussein, it appears that the United States is firmly committed to a path that will lead toward war with Iraq.

Prior to this occurring, we would do well to reflect on the words of President Abraham Lincoln who, in his Gettysburg Address, defined the essence of why democracies like ours go to war: so ``... that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.''

Does Iraq truly threaten the existence of our nation? If one takes at face value the rhetoric emanating from the Bush administration, it would seem so. According to President Bush and his advisers, Iraq is known to possess weapons of mass destruction and is actively seeking to reconstitute the weapons production capabilities that had been eliminated by UN weapons inspectors from 1991 to 1998, while at the same time barring the resumption of such inspections.

I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.
...

In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld notes that ``the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'' This only reinforces the fact that the case for war against Iraq fails to meet the litmus test for the defense of our national existence so eloquently phrased by President Lincoln.

War should never be undertaken lightly. Our nation's founders recognized this when they penned our Constitution, giving the authority to declare war to Congress and not to the president. Yet on the issue of war with Iraq, Congress remains disturbingly mute.
...

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm
All in all the WMD fiasco show that this administration is incapable of conspiracy.

WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST PLANT THEM? One truck load they look like hero's. Yet nothing. Blows your theory to crap, huh?

[Good Lt]

Again, there were no lies. Democrats matched Bush's rhetoric on Iraq from 1998 to the invasion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ

If video isn't your preferred medium, try some good old fashioned written quotes from the Democrats here (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp). "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

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

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

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.


That's the historical record. Doesn't lend itself to the "Bush lied" narrative being pushed here, does it?

[bofors]

Video evidence of Bush-Cheney regime lying on Iraq-WMD's:

OgfzqulvhlQ

[DGM]

OgfzqulvhlQ
Should we take this as you have no thoughts of your own. Are you just SPAMing here?

What is your take on this video and why should I watch it?

[Newtons Bit]

And of course, there is the fact that small amounts of chemical (mustard gas and sarin gas) have been found in Iraq. We never found any large capability to produce WMD which is why people always go around saying "the US never found WMD!". But of course we did. Saddam had a nasty habit of not labelling the artillery shells containing chemical weapons any different than normal shells.

The military itself was completly convinced that Saddam still had WMD in the extremely large number of munition caches across the country which led the military to ban explosively destroying these caches out of fear of more Gulf War Syndrome. Thus most of the commanders just cleared the caches and moved on. I recall hearing something about the 101st Airborne commander being one of the first to start leaving guards at the caches.

Various terrorist organizations eventually raided these caches and began using the weapons there to fight a large portion of the insurgency. And eventually, a few of the weapons that were used ended up being WMD. Though I doubt the terrorists in question had any idea what they were most of the time.

Don't say that there were no WMD found in Iraq. That is a lie (a lie based on the definition that everyone uses to call Bush a liar on WMD). There was no immediate capability to produce new WMD. Clinton got all of that in '98 and we didn't even know it.

[bofors]

And of course, there is the fact that small amounts of chemical (mustard gas and sarin gas) have been found in Iraq. We never found any large capability to produce WMD which is why people always go around saying "the US never found WMD!". But of course we did.

Really? Then why did Rumsfeld deny finding WMD's in Iraq here?:

v1FTmuhynaw

[Mince]

Who can state, unequivocally, that they knew there were no WMDs in Iraq before invasion? Hands please. And for those who knew there were no WMDs in Iraq before invasion; how did you know?

Thank you

[DGM]

Really? Then why did Rumsfeld deny finding WMD's in Iraq here?:

v1FTmuhynaw
Why didn't such evil just plant them genius? Your SPAMing is getting very tiresome. Start thinking for yourself and try to support your ideas with reason. You know like an adult.

[pomeroo]

Why are we wasting more space on this tripe? A tendentious, Soros-funded study recycles the left's Big Lie--so what? Of course Bush expected to find WMD in Iraq. Was he trying to lose an election? The Robb-Silberman committee found no evidence of manipulating evidence. When does this stuff get put to rest?
Incidentally, there is one candidate running for President who knows--not merely believes, but knows with absolute certainty--that intelligence on Iraq had not changed from Operation Desert Fox in November 1998 to January 20, 2001.

Care to guess her name?

[bofors]

And for those who knew there were no WMDs in Iraq before invasion; how did you know?

Scott Ritter said so: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm

[DGM]

Why are we wasting more space on this tripe? A tendentious, Soros-funded study recycles the left's Big Lie--so what? Of course Bush expected to find WMD in Iraq. Was he trying to lose an election? The Robb-Silberman committee found no evidence of manipulating evidence. When does this stuff get put to rest?
Incidentally, there is one candidate running for President who knows--not merely believes, but knows with absolute certainty--that intelligence on Iraq had not changed from Operation Desert Fox in November 1998 to January 20, 2001.

Care to guess her name?
Why did Bill talk in his sleep?

[Pardalis]

Why did Bill talk in his sleep?

I don't think they were sleeping in the same room at that point.

[Mince]

Scott Ritter said so: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm



While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry



From your own link.




Again, I ask who knew whether or not there were WMDs in Iraq or not and how did you know?

[bofors]

Again, I ask who knew whether or not there were WMDs in Iraq or not and how did you know?

Again, Scott Ritter knew there were substantially no WMDs in Iraq and he says so here: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm That is the whole point of his article. The idea that Scott Ritter did not know what he was talking about or that the US government did not know the truth of the matter is absurd.

The same can be said about Joseph Wilson and the lie that Iraq was trying to develop nuclear weapons. On behalf of Cheney's office and via the CIA, Wilson went to Nigeria and determined that the supposed "intelligence" of an Iraqi attempt to buy "yellowcake" uranium was bogus: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=6c6aeb1ce960dec0&ex=1372824000&partner=USERLAND

[boloboffin]

The War Card study does not say "lies." It says "false statements," and provides ample documentation for the falsity of the statements. It makes no judgment as to "lie." That is something that Gregory has imported to the study.

Pomeroo, in the spirit of preventing illegal imports, you will kindly point out the name of George Soros on this list of CPI funders (http://www.publicintegrity.org/about/about.aspx?act=funders).

[Viper Daimao]

Boloboffin, the study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign" An orchestrated campaign of "false statements"? Seems like they're claiming Bush lied.

It's not even all false statements. It includes the debunked charge that Bush lied in the "sixteen words" of the 2003 State of the Union address. Joe Wilson's own report to the CIA and to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence confirmed that, at least according to Niger's (former I think) Prime Minister, Iraq had sought to trade for uranium in 1999. The CPI site has the sixteen words posted as one of their false statements.

[boloboffin]

I just echoed a session yesterday on C-Span with Buzenberg. He is adamant about that distinction I made. You don't like it? Fine. That's all that they are claiming.

The evidence of the falsity of the statements, and the evidence of the orchestration are all right there. With 935 statements, you can focus in on one if you like.

But not with me, who knows the exact extent of how much Iraq "sought" to trade for uranium in 1999. Funny negotiation, when the subject never even came up.

[DGM]

Again, Scott Ritter knew there were substantially no WMDs in Iraq and he says so here: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm That is the whole point of his article. The idea that Scott Ritter did not know what he was talking about or that the US government did not know the truth of the matter is absurd.

The same can be said about Joseph Wilson and the lie that Iraq was trying to develop nuclear weapons. On behalf of Cheney's office and via the CIA, Wilson went to Nigeria and determined that the supposed "intelligence" of an Iraqi attempt to buy "yellowcake" uranium was bogus: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=6c6aeb1ce960dec0&ex=1372824000&partner=USERLAND
Why is it you "truthers" can't get the big picture?
This is from a Boston globe article. Do you know how they feel about Kerry?
Unfortunately, the senators entrusted with such critical oversight responsibilities shy away from this task. This includes Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran who should understand the realities and consequences of war and the absolute requirement for certainty before committing to a course of conflict.

Your insight to the ways of the world are really quite sad. Do you ever plan to get with the big picture and stop parroting what the "truthers" tell you?

[Mince]

Again, Scott Ritter knew there were substantially no WMDs in Iraq and he says so here: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm That is the whole point of his article. The idea that Scott Ritter did not know what he was talking about or that the US government did not know the truth of the matter is absurd.


we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament.

**emphasis added


Substantially and 90-95 percent are qualifiers. He wasn't even sure how sure he was. Eh, 90-95 percent, somewhere in there. Ritter wasn't saying there were absolutely no WMDs in Iraq, he was saying that he was pretty sure there were no WMDs in Iraq. Pretty sure is ok in a high school girls basketball game, but doesn't fly with WMDs in Iraq.

Remember, I'm talking about absolute knowledge, which is the only thing that would make at least the concept of invasion dubious, considering the significance of WMDs.



The same can be said about Joseph Wilson and the lie that Iraq was trying to develop nuclear weapons.


This is a separate issue.

[Mince]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=6c6aeb1ce960dec0&ex=1372824000&partner=USERLAND

from bofors' link above, not about that the U.S. thought Iraq was trying to develop a nuclear weapons program (which bofors stated) but whether Iraq had attempted to obtain nuclear weapon materials via the black market.




Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?



A question, not a statement of fact.



Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.


Show, don't tell, please.



While I never saw the report, I was told...




As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out...




...highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.




...it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq.



If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand...

**emphasis added



Do people actually read the links they assert as positive evidence?

[Mince]

You're not going to get me to defend Bush; I never voted for him and dislike his Administration.


I'm not going to defend Bush merely for the sake of defending Bush, either. However, I am going to defend logic and common sense; after the OP and posts by a few others in this thread, they need to be defended vigorously.



Oh yeah, I'll defend Truth, Justice and The American Way, also.

[Viper Daimao]

of course they don't. it doesn't matter as long as it's used to further their claims, just like truthers not caring about facts nor context, as long as it fits their worldview.

It was never claimed Iraq bought uranium, only that they sought to buy, which is exactly what Joe Wilson reported, and the nigerian pm said he assumed the iraqi delegation wanted to negociat about.

[twinstead]

Oh yeah, I'll defend Truth, Justice and The American Way, also.

Well, I would agree that accusing people of mass murder on the most absolutely tenuous of evidence, really no evidence at all, is indeed contrary to Truth, Justice, and The American Way regardless of who is being accused.

[pomeroo]

Again, Scott Ritter knew there were substantially no WMDs in Iraq and he says so here: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm That is the whole point of his article. The idea that Scott Ritter did not know what he was talking about or that the US government did not know the truth of the matter is absurd.

The same can be said about Joseph Wilson and the lie that Iraq was trying to develop nuclear weapons. On behalf of Cheney's office and via the CIA, Wilson went to Nigeria and determined that the supposed "intelligence" of an Iraqi attempt to buy "yellowcake" uranium was bogus: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=6c6aeb1ce960dec0&ex=1372824000&partner=USERLAND



You are insulting everyone's intelligence. It's 2008 and Lyin' Joe Wilson has been thoroughly discredited. He was not sent to Niger on behalf of Cheney and his findings strengthened, rather than refuted, the conclusion reached by British intelligence. A bi-partisan Senate investigating committee determined that Wilson lied and you're still trying to peddle his falsehoods here?

[beachnut]

The Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of lies that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.

Fully searchable database: http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Search/Default.aspx

Bush Administration's 935 Lies to Iraq War Part 1 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz9Ew1UBBj0

See you tube for:

Senator Dick Durbin speaks on the House Floor concerning FISA and the 935 lies to Iraq war.

Bush Administration's 935 Lies to Iraq War Part 2 of 3
Who was Dick Durbin talking to? You do understand those guys talk all the time to nobody.

Well your true 9/11 true politically biased BS is showing. Do you 9/11 truth guys have some play book to use when you fail to support your 9/11 truth false information with science and engineering, you fallback to pure politics? Is there a guide or something?

Love the 12. Which way was it?

Since you seem to favor Saddam, next time teach the idiot to be humble and not act like he had WMDs. What a dolt.

This is where you should post all your work! It is 9/11 truth stuff, mostly political stuff.

[Elind]

100s of billions of dollars were essentially missappropriated and people died because a group of high level officials mislead the amercian public to serve their own agenda. That counts as a conspiracy and treason in my book.

Your book belongs in the conspiracy section. Stupidity is not treason, fool.

[pomeroo]

The War Card study does not say "lies." It says "false statements," and provides ample documentation for the falsity of the statements. It makes no judgment as to "lie." That is something that Gregory has imported to the study.

Pomeroo, in the spirit of preventing illegal imports, you will kindly point out the name of George Soros on this list of CPI funders (http://www.publicintegrity.org/about/about.aspx?act=funders).


http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2008/01/how_to_lie_abou.html

[Kestrel]

You are insulting everyone's intelligence. It's 2008 and Lyin' Joe Wilson has been thoroughly discredited. He was not sent to Niger on behalf of Cheney and his findings strengthened, rather than refuted, the conclusion reached by British intelligence. A bi-partisan Senate investigating committee determined that Wilson lied and you're still trying to peddle his falsehoods here?

Time for a reality check.

Why would Iraq be trying to buy yellowcake when they already had plenty of yellowcake in the country?

Before 1983, Iraq had purchased about 400 metric tons of yellowcake (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol2_nuclear-03.htm). This material was stored under IAEA seal in Tuwaitha, Iraq. The IAEA periodically inspected the site. During the Iraq war, our forces reached the site and broke the seals witch were intact when they found them. The material was then left unguarded and much of it was looted (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3009082.stm).

The next question is how was Iraq going to hide the process of turning uranium ore into fissile material that could be used to build a nuclear bomb?

Remember that reactors suitable for producing plutonium give off huge amounts of heat that is easy to detect. Likewise, enrichment plants are large industrial facilities that need huge supplies of electricity. You can't hide either operation in a goat shed.

[JoeEllison]

what rubbish. Bush's "lies" were being said by clinton and gore in 98.

So Clinton and Gore lied as well. What's your point?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I also feel that the Bush Admin was so eager to go to war with Saddam, that they bought what ever intelligence promoted their agenda with little if any probing, scrutiny, or doubt.


If that's the case, he'd make an excellent truther. :)

[skeptical]

http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2008/01/how_to_lie_abou.html

They make the claim that Soros funds CPI, but they do not have any references showing this as far as I can tell. Did I miss the reference or is it just a claim? Neither Soros nor Moyers is on the list of CPI funders.

[skeptical]

You are insulting everyone's intelligence. It's 2008 and Lyin' Joe Wilson has been thoroughly discredited. He was not sent to Niger on behalf of Cheney and his findings strengthened, rather than refuted, the conclusion reached by British intelligence. A bi-partisan Senate investigating committee determined that Wilson lied and you're still trying to peddle his falsehoods here?

Quite right, the famous "16 words" cannot be classified as a lie, as what was said appears to be what he was told at the time, even though it later turned out to be incorrect. http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

[skeptical]

It's not even all false statements. It includes the debunked charge that Bush lied in the "sixteen words" of the 2003 State of the Union address. Joe Wilson's own report to the CIA and to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence confirmed that, at least according to Niger's (former I think) Prime Minister, Iraq had sought to trade for uranium in 1999. The CPI site has the sixteen words posted as one of their false statements.

US intelligence now believes that Iraq was not seeking to purchase Uranium when they approached Niger. It is not entirely clear what their reasoning is, but according to FactCheck, they came to this conclusion 5 months after the "16 words" speech. http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

Therefore, it would be accurate to say that "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." qualifies as a "false statement" if they were not seeking significant quantities of Uranium from Niger.

[boloboffin]

US intelligence now believes that Iraq was not seeking to purchase Uranium when they approached Niger. It is not entirely clear what their reasoning is, but according to FactCheck, they came to this conclusion 5 months after the "16 words" speech. http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

Therefore, it would be accurate to say that "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." qualifies as a "false statement" if they were not seeking significant quantities of Uranium from Niger.

Furthermore, how could a conversation in which uranium was not even mentioned be the basis for a claim of Iraq seeking "significant quantities of uranium," by the British government or anybody else?

ETA: Pomeroo:

The Center does not accept contributions from corporations, labor unions, governments or anonymous donors.

Since George Soros' name is not on that list, a link to some rightwing blogs yapping about George Soros is the argument equivalent of the Ben/Michael Chertoff relationship.

[Good Lt]

Again, Scott Ritter knew there were substantially no WMDs in Iraq and he says so here: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm That is the whole point of his article. The idea that Scott Ritter did not know what he was talking about or that the US government did not know the truth of the matter is absurd.

The same can be said about Joseph Wilson and the lie that Iraq was trying to develop nuclear weapons. On behalf of Cheney's office and via the CIA, Wilson went to Nigeria and determined that the supposed "intelligence" of an Iraqi attempt to buy "yellowcake" uranium was bogus: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=6c6aeb1ce960dec0&ex=1372824000&partner=USERLAND

Here:

Again, there were no lies. Democrats matched Bush's rhetoric on Iraq from 1998 to the invasion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ

If video isn't your preferred medium, try some good old fashioned written quotes from the Democrats here (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp).

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

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

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

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

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.



That's the historical record. Doesn't lend itself to the "Bush lied" narrative being pushed here, does it?

[skeptical]

Furthermore, how could a conversation in which uranium was not even mentioned be the basis for a claim of Iraq seeking "significant quantities of uranium," by the British government or anybody else?

Actually, I don't consider that to be an insurmountable issue. If the Iraqi's were trying to be coy about it, which they probably would have been, they may have used certain language that would indicate that they were looking for Uranium without actually using those words. Also, I don't know what previous conversations they might have had on the subject.

The Niger officials said they believed that Iraq was looking for Uranium, so perhaps there was something suspicious in the people or language or communication channels that led them to believe they were up to something nefarious.

Or, perhaps everyone was simply reading much more into the situation than was actually there because of hypersensitivity to Iraq's motives due to its past actions.

That seems to be a problem with intelligence gathering at the fringes of reliable sourcing. Even innocuous actions may seem incredibly devious if one is expecting to see something incredibly devious.

[Gazpacho]

Why is it always "Bush's lies" and not "Albright's lies", or "Ahmed Chalabi's lies" or ultimately, "Saddam Hussein's lies"?

[skeptical]

Why is it always "Bush's lies" and not "Albright's lies", or "Ahmed Chalabi's lies" or ultimately, "Saddam Hussein's lies"?

Ummm, cuz he the prezdent? :D

(ok, sorry, I simply could not resist. I intended that all in good fun)

To answer seriously, how about because he was the only person of those you named who was elected by and, supposedly, accountable to, the American people. Plus, something about the "buck stops here" comes to mind.

[boloboffin]

Actually, I don't consider that to be an insurmountable issue. If the Iraqi's were trying to be coy about it, which they probably would have been, they may have used certain language that would indicate that they were looking for Uranium without actually using those words. Also, I don't know what previous conversations they might have had on the subject.

The Niger officials said they believed that Iraq was looking for Uranium, so perhaps there was something suspicious in the people or language or communication channels that led them to believe they were up to something nefarious.

Or, perhaps everyone was simply reading much more into the situation than was actually there because of hypersensitivity to Iraq's motives due to its past actions.

That seems to be a problem with intelligence gathering at the fringes of reliable sourcing. Even innocuous actions may seem incredibly devious if one is expecting to see something incredibly devious.

The Nigerian official (singular) said that he believed the Iraqi delegation may have wanted to discuss uranium in the future. This is because he's a smart fellow and yellow cake is one of their top exports. The Iraqi delegation was on a toe-tapping discussion, in other words (and please forgive, but it's apt). It was clearly a situation where they did not dare suggest uranium openly, but appeared to hope that the Nigerian official might (as he supposed).

However, my point is the phrase "significant quantities." Even in an open-ended conversation, how could anyone divine "significant quantities" when uranium is not even being mentioned? There is nothing in the Nigerian official's account that suggests "significant quantities." For this part of the 16 words, the British government had to rely on other "intelligence," and more than likely it was the Italian source that eventually produced the forgeries. The forged documents concerned what could be called "significant quantities."

[rikzilla]

@Bofors:
Speaking of Scott Ritter...I've read "End Game" where he speaks of personally discovering Mukhabarrat terrorism schools, torture chambers and evidence of political prisoners used as human guinea pigs to deadly effect. He also clearly details the instances when his UNSCOM inspectors were interfered with, blocked, stranded, and coerced by Iraqi authorities. Scott Ritter indeed wrote "End Game" as a full on indictment of Saddam's regime as a terrorism supporting state working overtime to keep it's WMD projects black.

Later,...after Mr. Ritter was caught luring a minor accross state lines for the purpose of having sex,...he seems to have done a complete 180 in his views!

In short....why do you believe anything this guy says??? He went from being a respected professional...... to a despised internet sex predator.......to an anti-government crank!! Maybe you should look in a mirror and ask yourself if you aren't just an anti-government crank too??

-z

[skeptical]

However, my point is the phrase "significant quantities." Even in an open-ended conversation, how could anyone divine "significant quantities" when uranium is not even being mentioned? There is nothing in the Nigerian official's account that suggests "significant quantities." For this part of the 16 words, the British government had to rely on other "intelligence," and more than likely it was the Italian source that eventually produced the forgeries. The forged documents concerned what could be called "significant quantities."

Ah, true, Good point.

[Mince]

Time for a reality check.

Why would Iraq be trying to buy yellowcake when they already had plenty of yellowcake in the country?


If this were true, nobody would ever own 2 cars or 3 houses. WMDs are expendable. Maybe they were thinking long-term. In either case, it was probably better for the administration to check out the report that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear material and continue to assume they might have other WMDs of non-nuclear value.



The next question is how was Iraq going to hide the process of turning uranium ore into fissile material that could be used to build a nuclear bomb?

Remember that reactors suitable for producing plutonium give off huge amounts of heat that is easy to detect. Likewise, enrichment plants are large industrial facilities that need huge supplies of electricity. You can't hide either operation in a goat shed.


Logical reasoning, to be sure, but the administration couldn't afford to rely on sound reasoning alone when determining if Iraq had WMDs.

[pomeroo]

Time for a reality check.

Why would Iraq be trying to buy yellowcake when they already had plenty of yellowcake in the country?

Before 1983, Iraq had purchased about 400 metric tons of yellowcake (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol2_nuclear-03.htm). This material was stored under IAEA seal in Tuwaitha, Iraq. The IAEA periodically inspected the site. During the Iraq war, our forces reached the site and broke the seals witch were intact when they found them. The material was then left unguarded and much of it was looted (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3009082.stm).

The next question is how was Iraq going to hide the process of turning uranium ore into fissile material that could be used to build a nuclear bomb?

Remember that reactors suitable for producing plutonium give off huge amounts of heat that is easy to detect. Likewise, enrichment plants are large industrial facilities that need huge supplies of electricity. You can't hide either operation in a goat shed.



Your "reality check" ignores reality. You might want to read the series of articles Christopher Hitchens wrote in 2006 for Slate.com. Iraq was indeed interested in purchasing yellowcake from Niger.

[pomeroo]

Quite right, the famous "16 words" cannot be classified as a lie, as what was said appears to be what he was told at the time, even though it later turned out to be incorrect. http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html


What Bush said DID NOT turn out to be incorrect. Read the articles by Christopher Hitchens on Slate.com.

[pomeroo]

Why is it always "Bush's lies" and not "Albright's lies", or "Ahmed Chalabi's lies" or ultimately, "Saddam Hussein's lies"?


As I've written, there is one candidate for President who is absolutely certain that intelligence on Iraq didn't change from Operation Desert Fox in late 1998 to January 20, 2001. She seems a bit reluctant to discuss it.

[pomeroo]

@Bofors:
Speaking of Scott Ritter...I've read "End Game" where he speaks of personally discovering Mukhabarrat terrorism schools, torture chambers and evidence of political prisoners used as human guinea pigs to deadly effect. He also clearly details the instances when his UNSCOM inspectors were interfered with, blocked, stranded, and coerced by Iraqi authorities. Scott Ritter indeed wrote "End Game" as a full on indictment of Saddam's regime as a terrorism supporting state working overtime to keep it's WMD projects black.

Later,...after Mr. Ritter was caught luring a minor accross state lines for the purpose of having sex,...he seems to have done a complete 180 in his views!

In short....why do you believe anything this guy says??? He went from being a respected professional...... to a despised internet sex predator.......to an anti-government crank!! Maybe you should look in a mirror and ask yourself if you aren't just an anti-government crank too??

-z


It is, of course, inconceivable that the views of a man of Ritter's high moral standards could be affected by the $400,000 paid to him by the Iraqi government to make a "documentary."

[pomeroo]

They make the claim that Soros funds CPI, but they do not have any references showing this as far as I can tell. Did I miss the reference or is it just a claim? Neither Soros nor Moyers is on the list of CPI funders.


"Casting doubt on that claim is the fact that one of his organization’s largest financial backers is none other than George Soros (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977)’s Open Society Institute (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid=5181&category=79). According to the Foundation Center (http://foundationcenter.org/), in 2002 and 2003 alone, the institute gave more than $1.62 million to the Center for Public Integrity."


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=5B137B82-A227-4DEA-BC68-5084EC9607C6

[boloboffin]

Pomeroo:

You are giving us the runaround. The Foundation Center link goes to the front page of that organization, not to where OSI gives CPI more than $1.62 million. It is YOUR claim, YOU BACK IT UP.

I am presenting the list of CPI donors here:

The Center does not accept contributions from corporations, labor unions, governments or anonymous donors.

Foundation Support

* Annenberg Foundation
* Around Foundation
* Attias Family Foundation
* The Brodie Price Fund of the Jewish Community Foundation
* Morton K. and Jane Blaustein Foundation
* Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment
* Carnegie Corporation of New York
* Compton Foundation, Inc.
* Deer Creek Foundation
* Domitila Barrios de Chungara Fund at Peninsula Community Foundation
* Dudley Foundation
* Educational Foundation of America
* Everett Philanthropic Fund at the New York Community Trust
* Ford Foundation
* David B. Gold Foundation
* Daniel J. Goldman Foundation
* Gunzenhauser-Chapin Fund
* Haas Charitable Trusts
* Hafif Family Foundation
* The Heinz Endowments
* Honeybee Foundation
* The Inge Foundation
* JEHT Foundation
* The Lawrence Foundation
* Liberty Hill Foundation
* John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
* Maloney Family Fund
* The Robert & Bethany Millard Charitable Foundation
* Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust
* Nell Williams Family Foundation
* New York Community Trust
* John & Florence Newman Foundation
* Park Foundation, Inc.
* Karen & Christopher Payne Foundation
* Popplestone Foundation
* Lynn R. & Karl E. Prickett Fund
* Princeton University Class of 1969
* Rockefeller Brothers Fund
* The Shelley and Donald Rubin Foundation
* Scherman Foundation, Inc.
* The Joan Shorenstein Center
* Streisand Foundation
* John & Donna Sussman Foundation
* The Fund for Independence in Journalism
* Town Creek Foundation, Inc.
* Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program
* The Elmaleh Fund at the New York Community Trust
* Wallace Global Fund

Integrity Circle (Individuals $10,000 and above)

* Harriett Crosby
* Arthur D. Lipson
* Donna Mae Litowitz
* Fred and Alice Stanback

Transparency Circle (Individuals $5,000 — $9,999)

* Bruce A. Finzen
* Paula Madison

Muckraker Circle (Individuals $1,000 — $4,999)

* Richard I. Beattie
* Hodding Carter
* Russell Daniel
* Ken Feinberg
* Wilfred J. Gragert
* Barbara J. Graves
* Jimmy W. Janacek
* Jerry Knoll
* George W. Krumme
* James J. Lippard
* Susan Loewenberg
* Bevis Longstreth
* Michael Marston
* Janet Maughan
* Carolyn M. Murphey
* Jan Nicholson
* Geneva Overholser
* Charles Piller
* Jared Polis
* Donovan Rasmussen
* Eugene Scanlan
* Ben Sherwood
* Marianne Szegedy-Maszak

Watchdog Circle (Individuals $250 — $999)

* Caesar Alarcon
* Brian Arbogast
* George W. Bauer
* R. Harwood Beville
* Barbara P. Boucot
* David Braybrooke
* Peter Broner
* Ruth E. Brown
* Rachel Buddenerg
* Jerry D. Busch
* Henry Button
* William E. Buzenberg
* Peter Case
* Jonathan Coopersmith
* Edward Cummings and Erin Chung
* John A. Davidson
* Giovanna Deveny
* James K. Donnell
* Robert D. Duke
* David Earney
* Rita Falwell
* Grover Foster
* Dan Gillmor
* Milton Glicksman
* Charles Gorman
* James C. Grant
* Gay Gwinner
* Virginia M. Haas
* Aaron S. Hamburger
* Ben Hemmen
* Kurt D. Hudson
* Jonathan Ingbar
* Lecia R. Kaslofsky
* Irwin Katz
* Thomas Kaysar
* Alan S. King
* Marie Kireker
* William S. Lee
* Charles Lewis
* Gail Mattsson
* Barbara J. Meislin
* Luther T. Munford
* Michael J. O'Connor
* Michael O'Keefe
* John Pasquin
* Susan Patterson
* Alan Pye
* Jacques M. Quen
* Seymour Rubak
* David Rush
* Chris R. Schoeneman
* Yosefi M. Seltzer
* Andre Shashaty
* David Sobelson
* Anne Sprecher
* Sree Sreenivasan
* Donald O. Stover
* Peter D. Thompson
* Mark S. Thompson
* Michael Tiemann
* Ralph Tornberg
* John H. Whitmer
* Harold M. Williams
* Stacy Woodruff

We also thank the Center's Reporter Circle members who support our important work.

Neither George Soros nor the OSI appear on that list. Produce the goods.

ETA: Here is your first hint. Why does the fair and balanced and objective Frontpage magazine give us figures about 2002 and 2003, when the War Card study was done in the last two years?

[T.A.M.]

If that's the case, he'd make an excellent truther. :)

Agreed.

TAM;)

[Ion]

What an imbecile post:
what rubbish. Bush's "lies" were being said by clinton and gore in 98. Mistakes are not lies. I can't even see how some of these are lies. In fact a lot are correct. This is beyond weak.
Clinton in 1998 is not Bush in 2003.

Clinton in 1998 bombed facilities in Iraq.

In 2000 it was considered job well done, and Saddam contained.

In 2002 the U.N. resumed inspections and in 2003 assessed no W.M.D.s any good in Iraq.

In 2003 Bush heard the U.N. ispectors, but still he lied that W.M.D.s in Iraq are a threat.

[Ion]

What an imbecile wondering:
I wonder how most of these "lies" square with the fact that Saddam was trying to mislead everyone into believing he had WMDs to appear strong to Iran,and that he was just waiting for sanctions to lift before starting the programs up again (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml).

And yes, this should be in politics. There's conspiracy here on the Iraqi side, but no conspiracy theories.
Blix, El Baradei in U.N. in February 2003 showed that Saddam was no threat.

Bush lied that Saddam was a threat.

[Ion]

Another imbecile post:
Please prove that Bush didn't actually believe there were WMDs in Iraq, and how did he know? If Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq but still told the American public, et. al., there were, that is lying. But how did Bush know there were no WMDs in Iraq? Had he been there? Had he searched the whole country above ground and below ground? I'm confused.

Thank you.
Blix, El Baradei told Bush and the world there were no W.M.D.s any worth in Iraq.

Bush lied like a fanatic that he knew there were dangerous W.M.D.s in Iraq -no different than a Christian lying fanatically that there is no Evolution-, beacuse he wants to occupy Iraq and he used the threat as an excuse.

[Ion]

Too many imbeciles in America:
All in all the WMD fiasco show that this administration is incapable of conspiracy.

WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST PLANT THEM? One truck load they look like hero's. Yet nothing. Blows your theory to crap, huh?
Bush didn't plant them because the world is watching for Bush planting.

Bush even tried to claim he found biological labs, and the world exposed him.

Never mind planting after that.

[Ion]

This imbecile confuses Clinton in 1998 with Bush in 2003:
Again, there were no lies. Democrats matched Bush's rhetoric on Iraq from 1998 to the invasion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ

If video isn't your preferred medium, try some good old fashioned written quotes from the Democrats here (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp).

That's the historical record. Doesn't lend itself to the "Bush lied" narrative being pushed here, does it?
Bush in 2003 lied.

[Ion]

...Of course Bush expected to find WMD in Iraq...
Exactly like a fanatic Christian who expects to find there is no Evolution.

Blix, El Baradei in U.N., Chirac from France, told Bush there are no W.M.D.s any good in Iraq, in 2003.

[Ion]

Finally:
Again, Scott Ritter knew there were substantially no WMDs in Iraq and he says so here: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm That is the whole point of his article. The idea that Scott Ritter did not know what he was talking about or that the US government did not know the truth of the matter is absurd.

The same can be said about Joseph Wilson and the lie that Iraq was trying to develop nuclear weapons. On behalf of Cheney's office and via the CIA, Wilson went to Nigeria and determined that the supposed "intelligence" of an Iraqi attempt to buy "yellowcake" uranium was bogus: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=6c6aeb1ce960dec0&ex=1372824000&partner=USERLAND
That's correct.

[Ion]

Boloboffin, the study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign" An orchestrated campaign of "false statements"? Seems like they're claiming Bush lied.

It's not even all false statements. It includes the debunked charge that Bush lied in the "sixteen words" of the 2003 State of the Union address. Joe Wilson's own report to the CIA and to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence confirmed that, at least according to Niger's (former I think) Prime Minister, Iraq had sought to trade for uranium in 1999. The CPI site has the sixteen words posted as one of their false statements.
Bush lied in an orchestrated campaign to occupy Iraq.

[Ion]

How do you make up baloney?You are insulting everyone's intelligence. It's 2008 and Lyin' Joe Wilson has been thoroughly discredited. He was not sent to Niger on behalf of Cheney and his findings strengthened, rather than refuted, the conclusion reached by British intelligence. A bi-partisan Senate investigating committee determined that Wilson lied and you're still trying to peddle his falsehoods here?

[Ion]

@Bofors:
Speaking of Scott Ritter...
In short....why do you believe anything this guy says???
...

-z
Because Ritter is right, and Bush is wrong.

[Ion]

Your "reality check" ignores reality. You might want to read the series of articles Christopher Hitchens wrote in 2006 for Slate.com. Iraq was indeed interested in purchasing yellowcake from Niger.
Any imminent danger like the U.S. poses?

[skeptical]

What Bush said DID NOT turn out to be incorrect. Read the articles by Christopher Hitchens on Slate.com.

I like Hitchens, but I don't think he knows more than the US Intelligence community on this subject.

US Intel concluded 5 months after the speech that Iraq was not attempting to obtain large quantities of Uranium from Niger.

On matters of intelligence, I would think the final arbiter would have to be US Intel unless there is good evidence they are wrong. Are you disputing that US Intel concluded the statement was wrong, or are you saying that you have good evidence that their conclusion was wrong?

[pomeroo]

What an imbecile post:

Clinton in 1998 is not Bush in 2003.

Clinton in 1998 bombed facilities in Iraq.

In 2000 it was considered job well done, and Saddam contained.

In 2002 the U.N. resumed inspections and in 2003 assessed no W.M.D.s any good in Iraq.

In 2003 Bush heard the U.N. ispectors, but still he lied that W.M.D.s in Iraq are a threat.



Liar. I beat you to a pulp on the thread concerning the missing WMD.

THE U.N. DID NOT CONCLUDE in 2003 THAT SADDAM HAD NO WMD.

How many times will we be forced to go through this?

Hillary Clinton understands very well that there were no changes in American intelligence assessments from November 1998 to January 2001.

[pomeroo]

What an imbecile wondering:

Blix, El Baradei in U.N. in February 2003 showed that Saddam was no threat.

Bush lied that Saddam was a threat.


Liar. Blix showed no such thing. I have demonstrated this fact to you repeatedly.

[pomeroo]

Bush lied in an orchestrated campaign to occupy Iraq.


Liar. You have never shown a single lie told by Bush.

[pomeroo]

How do you make up baloney?


Your pathetic evasion acknowledges that you have been caught again. Every word I wrote is true--as you know.

[pomeroo]

I like Hitchens, but I don't think he knows more than the US Intelligence community on this subject.

US Intel concluded 5 months after the speech that Iraq was not attempting to obtain large quantities of Uranium from Niger.

On matters of intelligence, I would think the final arbiter would have to be US Intel unless there is good evidence they are wrong. Are you disputing that US Intel concluded the statement was wrong, or are you saying that you have good evidence that their conclusion was wrong?


Where are you getting this stuff? A bi-partisan committee investigating Lyin' Joe's claims concluded that the agenda-driven publicity hound actually lent support to the findings of British intel.

[pomeroo]

Any imminent danger like the U.S. poses?


Your lunatic hatred of America can't alter reality.

[Elind]

What an imbecile wondering:

Blix, El Baradei in U.N. in February 2003 showed that Saddam was no threat.

Bush lied that Saddam was a threat.

Blix was, is, an idiot. He based his assessment entirely on what Saddam wanted him to base it on. Anyone who thinks Saddam suddenly changed spots, and was no longer a threat is like a fool who says mass murderers in prison are not a threat anymore, and should be released.

I don't think Bush lied, I just think he was, is, as much of a fool as Blix.

[Mince]

Blix, El Baradei told Bush and the world there were no W.M.D.s any worth in Iraq.


How could they have known with absolute surety that there were no WMDs? Blix did not tell Bush there were no WMDs in Iraq, Blix told Bush he did not find any WMDs in Iraq. If Blix had told Bush there were no WMDs in Iraq, it was wise of Bush, as POTUS, not to believe him considering all of the events prior to 2003.



P.S. I haven't heard the word imbecile since high school...well, and that time while watching The Three Stooges marathon on TNT. Thanks for the whimsical feelings of nostalgia.

[Mince]

Blix was, is, an idiot. He based his assessment entirely on what Saddam wanted him to base it on. Anyone who thinks Saddam suddenly changed spots, and was no longer a threat is like a fool who says mass murderers in prison are not a threat anymore, and should be released.


And Saddam booted Blix, et. al., from the country twice! Yeah, I'm sure Blix found everything there was to know about Iraq's WMD program.


I don't think Bush lied, I just think he was, is, as much of a fool as Blix


Cha-ching! But I will add that, after 12 years, several ONW and OSW missions, Desert Fox, significant periods of non-compliance by Saddam, including ejecting weapons inspectors and other diplomats, it was probably a pretty sound idea to see for ourselves if Iraq had WMDs, because who really knew before March 2003?

[Kestrel]

Your "reality check" ignores reality. You might want to read the series of articles Christopher Hitchens wrote in 2006 for Slate.com. Iraq was indeed interested in purchasing yellowcake from Niger.

Hitchens starts with the visit of one Iraqi diplomat in 1999, then goes on to claim that it must have been a trip to try to purchase yellowcake because this diplomat was involved in nuclear matters a decade or two earlier.

A rather impressive leap of faith unsupported by evidence.

Rather typical for a Neocon spokesman like Hitchens.

[Kestrel]

Where are you getting this stuff? A bi-partisan committee investigating Lyin' Joe's claims concluded that the agenda-driven publicity hound actually lent support to the findings of British intel.

If that is true, you should have no trouble pointing to the exact words in the published committee document that prove your point.

[pomeroo]

Hitchens starts with the visit of one Iraqi diplomat in 1999, then goes on to claim that it must have been a trip to try to purchase yellowcake because this diplomat was involved in nuclear matters a decade or two earlier.

A rather impressive leap of faith unsupported by evidence.

Rather typical for a Neocon spokesman like Hitchens.


But, Hitchens is not a neocon and nobody sane thinks he is. He remains a man of the left who recognizes the threat posed by radical Islam. You would have done well to read what Hitchens wrote. Come to think of it, it wouldn't have made any difference.

[pomeroo]

If that is true, you should have no trouble pointing to the exact words in the published committee document that prove your point.


If it is true that the South lost the Battle of Gettysburg, I should have no trouble finding a history book that confirms that fact.

Have you recently awakened from a coma? What do you suppose would happen if you Googled "bipartisan committee on Joe Wilson's claims"?

(selected from many, many examples)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

[Ion]

Your lunatic hatred of America can't alter reality.
pomy,

your lunatic hatred of America can't alter reality.

Liar. I beat you to a pulp on the thread concerning the missing WMD.

THE U.N. DID NOT CONCLUDE in 2003 THAT SADDAM HAD NO WMD.

How many times will we be forced to go through this?

Hillary Clinton understands very well that there were no changes in American intelligence assessments from November 1998 to January 2001.


Liar.

I beat you to a pulp on the thread concerning the missing W.M.D.s.

THE U.N. DID CONCLUDE in 2003 THAT SADDAM HAD NO W.M.D.s.

That's why Bush went to war against Iraq, without the approval of U.N..


How many times will we be forced to go through this?

[Ion]

Liar. Blix showed no such thing. I have demonstrated this fact to you repeatedly.
Liar.
Blix showed such thing.
I have demonstrated this fact to you repeatedly.
Liar. You have never shown a single lie told by Bush.
Liar.

I have shown plenty of lies told by Bush about W.M.D.s in Iraq.
Your pathetic evasion acknowledges that you have been caught again. Every word I wrote is true--as you know.
Your pathetic evasion acknowledges that you have been caught again.

Every word you wrote is false--as you know.

[Ion]

Blix was, is, an idiot. He based his assessment entirely on what Saddam wanted him to base it on. Anyone who thinks Saddam suddenly changed spots, and was no longer a threat is like a fool who says mass murderers in prison are not a threat anymore, and should be released.

I don't think Bush lied, I just think he was, is, as much of a fool as Blix.
If Blix was and is an idiot, then how come he was right about no W.M.D.s in Iraq?

Looks like Blix is smart, and you are not smart at all.

[Ion]

How could they have known with absolute surety that there were no WMDs? Blix did not tell Bush there were no WMDs in Iraq, Blix told Bush he did not find any WMDs in Iraq. If Blix had told Bush there were no WMDs in Iraq, it was wise of Bush, as POTUS, not to believe him considering all of the events prior to 2003.



P.S. I haven't heard the word imbecile since high school...well, and that time while watching The Three Stooges marathon on TNT. Thanks for the whimsical feelings of nostalgia.
There were no W.M.D.s in Iraq per Blix inspecting Iraq.

Blix told Bush in U.N. that, [edited].

A continuation of name-calling will result in an infraction.

[Ion]

And Saddam booted Blix, et. al., from the country twice! Yeah, I'm sure Blix found everything there was to know about Iraq's WMD program.
...

Did Saddam boot Blix from Iraq after 2002, idiot?

I know Bush did boot Blix from Iraq after 2002, to start his imperialist war against Iraq, but I don't know of Saddam booting Blix from Iraq after 2002.

[Ion]

...
Cha-ching! But I will add that, after 12 years, several ONW and OSW missions, Desert Fox, significant periods of non-compliance by Saddam, including ejecting weapons inspectors and other diplomats, it was probably a pretty sound idea to see for ourselves if Iraq had WMDs, because who really knew before March 2003?
Cha-ching my xxx!

Israel breaches 242, 338, Oslo, and Iraq is a scapegoat for fewer U.N. Resolutions broken that what Israel does.

Also, Bush's U.S. broke U.N. Resolution 1441, which Bush signed to defer to U.N.S.C. the decision on whether to attack Iraq so as to not attack Iraq unilaterally.

Also Bush gives aid to Uzbekistan, a dictature.

Spare me your American imbecility, and face Bush's imperialism.

[Ion]

But, Hitchens is not a neocon and nobody sane thinks he is. He remains a man of the left who recognizes the threat posed by radical Islam. You would have done well to read what Hitchens wrote. Come to think of it, it wouldn't have made any difference.
Who cares about Hitchens other than sclerotic pomy?

U.N. had Blix and El Baradei stating in February 2003, just before Bush's war, that there were no W.M.D.s any good in Iraq.

France's Chirac said the same thing.

Bush wanted to occupy Iraq and use Saddam as a smokescreen.

[Ion]

Evidence of what I post is below.

Just a sample evidence and a peaceful alternative to war (i.e.: the peaceful exile of Saddam) comes from Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward with world positions just before the war.

In page 293:

"...Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said, "We have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons program since its elimination in the 1990s."..."

In page 312:

"...Tenet added that he was receiving information from French intelligence, and that he did not have a problem with the current French intelligence..."

In page 313:

"..."I am positive about the Saudi proposal," Chirac said referring to the recent suggestion that Saddam be allowed to go in exile, "because it sought to avoid war."..."

In page 317:

"...Blix's central conclusion -that disarmement through inspections was possible..."

In page 316:

"...Blix reported. "All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly."...the inspectors had "not found any such weapons,..."..."

In page 222:

"...De Villepin insisted on a two-step process. First a resolution for a new round of inspectors...A second resolution would have to be passed to authorize the use of force...
the French position was that a false declaration "and" a general failure to cooperate would constitute a material breach...De Villepin wouldn't budge..."
(note: the first resolution is 1441)

In page 241, regarding Bush:

"..."Chirac says that Sharon is pulling the blinds over my eyes."..."

In page 313:

"...AT 11:35 A.M. Friday, February 7, Chirac called Bush.
"I do not share your spirit for why we need war," Chirac said coolly. "War is not inevitable. There are alternative ways to reach goals. It's a question of morality. I am against war unless it is inevitable and neccessary.".."

"..."Noting today justifies war," Chirac said.

Also consider this:

http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd77/77iraq.htm

"...In contrast, according to Blix, President Chirac had a healthy scepticism about intelligence...His thinking "seemed to be dominated by the conviction that Iraq did not pose a threat that justified armed intervention"..."

[Ion]

To that Mince [edited].

Saddam was reluctant to coperate but it is well known that in 2003 he was cooperating with U.N. weapon inspections, and the U.N. weapon inspections reported in U.N. to Bush in February 2003 that Saddam had no W.M.D.s any good:

"The important thing to remember, Blix said repeatedly, was that Saddam was cooperating with the inspections, despite the difficulties they create for a leader. "No one likes inspectors, not tax inspectors, not health inspectors, not any inspectors," Blix chuckled. Not only did Saddam have to endure the indignity of submitting to searches of his palaces, he explained, but the dictator also harbored the valid fear that the inspectors would pass on their findings of conventional weapons to foreign intelligence agencies, providing easy future targets."

is from:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml[/QUOTE]

Please refrain from name calling.

[pomeroo]

pomy,

your lunatic hatred of America can't alter reality.


Liar.

I beat you to a pulp on the thread concerning the missing W.M.D.s.

THE U.N. DID CONCLUDE in 2003 THAT SADDAM HAD NO W.M.D.s.

That's why Bush went to war against Iraq, without the approval of U.N..


How many times will we be forced to go through this?


I simply refuse to recycle the entire thread on the missing WMD to continue arguing with a mentally-ill person. Note that he clings to his often-repeated lie regarding the U.N. He--Ion--posted the link to an article that pointed out that French intel conlcuded that Saddam retained WMD. He then attempted to use the article that refuted his lie about French intel believing that there no WMD to support his own position. Now, if you want to point out to this lunatic that the U.N. was unable to give Saddam a clean bill of health, don't waste your time. It has been done many times: he simply ignores the fact that his falsehoods have been exposed and goes on repeating them.

[pomeroo]

To that Mince-imbecile thing.

Saddam was reluctant to coperate but it is well known that in 2003 he was cooperating with U.N. weapon inspections, and the U.N. weapon inspections reported in U.N. to Bush in February 2003 that Saddam had no W.M.D.s any good:

"The important thing to remember, Blix said repeatedly, was that Saddam was cooperating with the inspections, despite the difficulties they create for a leader. "No one likes inspectors, not tax inspectors, not health inspectors, not any inspectors," Blix chuckled. Not only did Saddam have to endure the indignity of submitting to searches of his palaces, he explained, but the dictator also harbored the valid fear that the inspectors would pass on their findings of conventional weapons to foreign intelligence agencies, providing easy future targets."

is from:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml[/quote]


AGAIN, BLIX MADE THE ROUNDS OF ALL THE POLITICAL TALK SHOWS TO COMPLAIN THAT SADDAM WAS < NOT > COOPERATING WITH THE INSPECTORS.
THE AMERICA-HATING RADICAL ION BELIEVES THAT SADDAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
HE WILL RE-WRITE HISTORY TO SUPPORT HIS LIES.

[pomeroo]

There were no W.M.D.s in Iraq per Blix inspecting Iraq.

Blix told Bush in U.N. that, idiot.


Liar. You have been exposed. Blix NEVER said there were no WMD in Iraq.

[skeptical]

Where are you getting this stuff? A bi-partisan committee investigating Lyin' Joe's claims concluded that the agenda-driven publicity hound actually lent support to the findings of British intel.

That is true. However, it is also true that US intel concluded for its own reasons that, in fact, Iraq was not trying to obtain large quantities of Uranium from Niger. I posted the link to factcheck earlier, but I will post it again. I have generally found them to be very reliable, non-partisan (if such a thing exists) and quick to correct errors when they make them.

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

Their conclusion is that Bush was not lying when he said it, but the content of the statement was in fact false.

From the link:

"Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." But that wasn't until June 17, 2003 -- nearly five months after Bush's 16 words."

[Elind]

If Blix was and is an idiot, then how come he was right about no W.M.D.s in Iraq?

Looks like Blix is smart, and you are not smart at all.

Blix could find neither evidence that they or much of the material bought to make them had been destroyed, nor where they could have hidden them (in Syria maybe?). That does not amount to knowing that they had none left.

After seeing you call Hitchens a neocon, I question why I bother to try to educate you. That's dumber than calling Blix smart.

[Kestrel]

That is true. However, it is also true that US intel concluded for its own reasons that, in fact, Iraq was not trying to obtain large quantities of Uranium from Niger. I posted the link to factcheck earlier, but I will post it again. I have generally found them to be very reliable, non-partisan (if such a thing exists) and quick to correct errors when they make them.

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

Their conclusion is that Bush was not lying when he said it, but the content of the statement was in fact false.

From the link:

"Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." But that wasn't until June 17, 2003 -- nearly five months after Bush's 16 words."

The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research had concluded that the documents were bogus shortly after receiving copies on Oct. 15, 2002. They reported this information to the the CIA and provided copies of the documents, which the CIA stuffed in a safe and ignored. When the CIA prepared a report in December, they left out the State Department INR's views. See pages 59 and 60 of the Senate Report (warning, huge pdf file) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/senateiraqreport.pdf). The CIA didn't examine the documents until after the war started.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Arguing with eithr Ion or Pomeroo is uh.. an interesting, but futile exercise in futility.

[pomeroo]

That is true. However, it is also true that US intel concluded for its own reasons that, in fact, Iraq was not trying to obtain large quantities of Uranium from Niger. I posted the link to factcheck earlier, but I will post it again. I have generally found them to be very reliable, non-partisan (if such a thing exists) and quick to correct errors when they make them.

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

Their conclusion is that Bush was not lying when he said it, but the content of the statement was in fact false.

From the link:

"Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." But that wasn't until June 17, 2003 -- nearly five months after Bush's 16 words."


It is tiresome to repeat endlessly that the Italian documents played no role in forming the conclusion reached by British intel.

[pomeroo]

Arguing with eithr Ion or Pomeroo is uh.. an interesting, but futile exercise in futility.


Comparing me with Ion is easily the weightiest insult I have received on these forums and the most unjust. You are comparing me to someone who mindlessly repeats the same falsehood after it has been completely refuted. For sane people, the statement that the U.N. claimed that Saddam had no WMD is answered by: No, it did not.

[Elind]

Arguing with eithr Ion or Pomeroo is uh.. an interesting, but futile exercise in futility.

:confused: Based on that I was curious to see what approaches you have tried. Seems to be none in this thread, so presumably what you are clumsily saying is that their positions are kind of like between a creationists and scientist.
Granted, an exercise in futility 99% of the time; but is that all you are interested in?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Well, I actually was going to comment. Then Ion jumped in and it's ... well, why comment?

Pomeroo: I'm not trying to insult you. It's more... well, you and Ion both have political binders. (Granted, yours is not as bad)

Anyway, just to answer the OP: There was NEVER 100% proof that Iraq had no WMD's. While they did push the Intelligence a bit too aggressively for what proof they had.. you couldn't say with certainty that they had no WMD's. (Or that they had them)

[skeptical]

It is tiresome to repeat endlessly that the Italian documents played no role in forming the conclusion reached by British intel.

I don't think you are following me. The point is, that US Intel decided, based on the forged documents AND other information, that the statement was wrong.

If you have a beef with that, you need to say why you think that US Intel was wrong when they determined that the statement was incorrect 5 months after the speech.

You said that the "16 words" were not false. US Intel says they were. That is the only pertinent issue. If you have a good reason for saying they are wrong, I'm willing to hear it. But so far you have not addressed the only point that matters: US Intel concluded the statement was wrong. What anyone else says or thinks on the matter is irrelevant unless there is evidence and argument to contradict the US Intel determination.

So, why do you think that the US Intel conclusion is wrong?

[pomeroo]

I don't think you are following me. The point is, that US Intel decided, based on the forged documents AND other information, that the statement was wrong.

If you have a beef with that, you need to say why you think that US Intel was wrong when they determined that the statement was incorrect 5 months after the speech.

You said that the "16 words" were not false. US Intel says they were. That is the only pertinent issue. If you have a good reason for saying they are wrong, I'm willing to hear it. But so far you have not addressed the only point that matters: US Intel concluded the statement was wrong. What anyone else says or thinks on the matter is irrelevant unless there is evidence and argument to contradict the US Intel determination.

So, why do you think that the US Intel conclusion is wrong?


I think you may be confused. U.S. intel determined that the Italian documents were forgeries. What is your evidence that U.S. intelligence agencies somehow figured out that their British counterparts were wrong? The Brits stand by their assessment to this day. Bush's infamous sixteen words were not false, and I have never heard of any American agency contradicting them. When the committee that exposed Joe Wilson as a liar concluded that he had strengthened the British claims, they were not refuting that sentence in Bush's speech.

[pomeroo]

I think you may be confused. U.S. intel determined that the Italian documents were forgeries. What is your evidence that U.S. intelligence agencies somehow figured out that their British counterparts were wrong? The Brits stand by their assessment to this day. Bush's infamous sixteen words were not false, and I have never heard of any American agency contradicting them. When the committee that exposed Joe Wilson as a liar concluded that he had strengthened the British claims, they were not refuting that sentence in Bush's speech.


I should add a few comments to what I've written. You linked to an article written in 2004 refuting the false claim that Bush lied in his speech. Since 2004, various conservative pundits have openly questioned the judgment of Bush insiders who were too quick to attempt to mollify their savage and implacable critics. By conceding that the British estimate was wrong, when it remains an open question, the Bushies set themselves up for a sustained barrage from the shrillest, most unscrupulous characters on the American political scene. Christopher Hitchens clearly established in his series of essays on Slate.com that reports of Iraqis seeking to negotiate with Niger were well-founded.

[boloboffin]

Where in Hitchens' articles does he justify the inclusion of the words "significant quantities," pomeroo?

[pomeroo]

Where in Hitchens' articles does he justify the inclusion of the words "significant quantities," pomeroo?


I don't know that Hitchens intended to challenge the assessment of British intel, nor do I know how the Brits estimated how much uranium was involved. Hitchens's point was that Niger has little to offer apart from yellowcake. If Iraqi agents were attempting to negotiate the purchase of something that Niger is selling, well, you can complete the sentence.

[pomeroo]

Today's editorial in the WSJ fits this thread and the one on liberal media bias perfectly:

Buried WMD Scoop
February 1, 2008

Journalists are taught never to "bury the lead." Yet it looks as if that's precisely what CBS's "60 Minutes" did in reporter Scott Pelley's fascinating interview Sunday with George Piro, the FBI agent who debriefed Saddam Hussein following his capture in December 2003.
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/HC-GE664_Hussei_20051028111958.gif
The Lebanese-born Mr. Piro, one of only a handful of agents at the bureau who speaks Arabic, was able to wheedle information from Saddam over a matter of months through a combination of flattery and ego-deflation that worked wonders with the former despot. But as Bruce Chapman of the Discovery Institute first noticed, the most important news in the segment comes when Mr. Piro describes his conversations with Saddam about weapons of mass destruction. The FBI interrogator says that, while Saddam said he no longer had active WMD programs in 2003, the dictator admitted that he intended to resume those programs as soon as he possibly could.
Here's the relevant segment, which appears well down in the interview:
Mr. Piro: "The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there."
Mr. Pelley: "And that was his intention?"
Mr. Piro: "Yes."
Mr. Pelley: "What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?"
Mr. Piro: "He wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD program."
Mr. Pelley: "Chemical, biological, even nuclear."
Mr. Piro: "Yes."
Iraq's active WMD program had been destroyed, mostly by U.N. weapons inspectors, sometime in the 1990s, but Saddam told Mr. Piro that he maintained a pretense of having those weapons mainly to keep Iran at bay. This isn't exactly news. The key point is Saddam's admission that an Iraqi WMD program remained a threat so long as Saddam remained in power.
Opponents of the war argue that none of this matters because Saddam and his ambitions were being "contained" by U.N. sanctions. Hardly. As the Los Angeles Times reported in December 2000, "sanctions are crumbling among U.S. allies, who have begun challenging them with dozens of unauthorized flights into [Iraq]."
Bowing to this reality, the Bush Administration came to office the following month promising to ease the sanctions regime, even as it spent billions patrolling the so-called "No-Fly Zones." And as we learned after the invasion, Saddam was well on his way to breaking free of the sanctions by bribing everyone from a British member of parliament to a former French cabinet minister, all through a U.N. convenience known as Oil for Food.
In another telling moment in the "60 Minutes" interview, Mr. Piro relates that when he asked Saddam about his use of chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians, the dictator acknowledged that he had given the orders personally and explained himself in a word: "Necessary." The same still goes for getting rid of Saddam.

[skeptical]

I should add a few comments to what I've written. You linked to an article written in 2004 refuting the false claim that Bush lied in his speech. Since 2004, various conservative pundits have openly questioned the judgment of Bush insiders who were too quick to attempt to mollify their savage and implacable critics. By conceding that the British estimate was wrong, when it remains an open question, the Bushies set themselves up for a sustained barrage from the shrillest, most unscrupulous characters on the American political scene. Christopher Hitchens clearly established in his series of essays on Slate.com that reports of Iraqis seeking to negotiate with Niger were well-founded.

Like I said before, I like Hitchens, but I don't consider him, or any other "pundit" the final arbiter on the question.

Whatever Hitchens arguments, the plain fact is that US Intel decided that the statement was wrong. The exact quotes from their internal memorandum and Tenet's comments are at the link I posted.

If you want to say that US Intel's decision is wrong, that is your business. But you should appreciate that someone who is trying to make an informed decision if the intelligence assessment was wrong would likely take the opinion of the CIA over any pundit.

It is certainly not unreasonable for someone to say that the statement is wrong if the CIA says that is what they determined.

[Ion]

I simply refuse to recycle the entire thread on the missing WMD to continue arguing with a mentally-ill person. Note that he clings to his often-repeated lie regarding the U.N. He--Ion--posted the link to an article that pointed out that French intel conlcuded that Saddam retained WMD. He then attempted to use the article that refuted his lie about French intel believing that there no WMD to support his own position. Now, if you want to point out to this lunatic that the U.N. was unable to give Saddam a clean bill of health, don't waste your time. It has been done many times: he simply ignores the fact that his falsehoods have been exposed and goes on repeating them.
I simply refuse to recycle the entire thread on the missing W.M.D.s to continue arguing with a mentally-ill person, pomeroo.
Note that he clings to his often-repeated lie regarding the U.N..
I posted the link to an article that pointed out that French intel concluded that Saddam retained W.M.D. that weren't any good.
pomy then used the article that refuted his lie about French intel believing that there were no W.M.D.s any good to support his own position.
Now, if you want to point out to this lunatic pomy that the U.N. was unable to give Saddam a clean bill of health, don't waste your time.
It has been done many times: pomeroo simply ignores the fact that his falsehoods have been exposed and goes on repeating them.

[Ion]

(Double post)

[Ion]

AGAIN, BLIX MADE THE ROUNDS OF ALL THE POLITICAL TALK SHOWS TO COMPLAIN THAT SADDAM WAS < NOT > COOPERATING WITH THE INSPECTORS.
THE AMERICA-HATING RADICAL ION BELIEVES THAT SADDAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
HE WILL RE-WRITE HISTORY TO SUPPORT HIS LIES.
AGAIN, AS A PART OF U.S. BRAIWASHING PROPAGANDA BLIX ALLEGEDLY MADE THE ROUNDS OF ALL THE POLITICAL TALK SHOWS TO COMPLAIN THAT SADDAM WAS < NOT > COOPERATING WITH THE INSPECTORS.
THE AMERICA-HATING RADICAL POMEROO BELIEVES THAT SADDAM WAS ANY TERRORIST INSTEAD OF A SIMPLE DICTATOR.
HE WILL RE-WRITE HISTORY TO SUPPORT HIS LIES.

[Ion]

Liar. You have been exposed. Blix NEVER said there were no WMD in Iraq.
Liar.
You have been exposed.
Blix said there were no W.M.D.s any good in Iraq.

Per the quotes I gave.

Revisionist pomeroo wants Blix's and El Baradei's quotes in U.N. in February 2003 to disappear, but they are recorded in history as opposing Bush's and pomeroo's imperialist war.

[Ion]

Comparing me with Ion is easily the weightiest insult I have received on these forums and the most unjust. You are comparing me to someone who mindlessly repeats the same falsehood after it has been completely refuted. For sane people, the statement that the U.N. claimed that Saddam had no WMD is answered by: No, it did not.
Comparing me with pomerro is easily the weightiest insult I have received on these forums and the most unjust.
You are comparing me to someone who mindlessly repeats the same falsehood after it has been completely refuted.
For sane people, the statement that the U.N. claimed that Saddam had no W.M.D.s is answered by:
yes, Saddam had no W.M.D.s.

I showed the U.N. quotes, and pomeroo can't delete them.

[Ion]

:confused: Based on that I was curious to see what approaches you have tried. Seems to be none in this thread, so presumably what you are clumsily saying is that their positions are kind of like between a creationists and scientist.
Granted, an exercise in futility 99% of the time; but is that all you are interested in?
My approach is scientific.

The quotes I put yesterday show lack of perception of threat from Saddam in February 2003.

Bush fanatically over ruled U.N. on W.M.D.s in Iraq to start his imperialist war, and he is is proven wrong.

Can't argue with:

.) U.N. quotes in February 2003;

.) Bush being wrong.

[Ion]

...Bush's infamous sixteen words were not false, and I have never heard of any American agency contradicting them....
Bush shouldn't have made them.

They are wrong.

By your token Bush can use these sixteeen words that are wrong because the British -not Bush- made the claim, exactly in the same manner that Bush can use Hitler's opinions because they are Hitler's -not Bush's-.

Whoever uses the claim, is guilty of the false claim.

Bush is guilty of the false claim.

[Ion]

...
Pomeroo: I'm not trying to insult you. It's more... well, you and Ion both have political binders. (Granted, yours is not as bad)
...

Reagarding "...(Granted, yours is not as bad)..." I remind you that pomeroo asserts there were beliefs in U.N. of W.M.D.s in Iraq in 2003.
In 2003 and now in 2008 I show that there were no beliefs in U.N. of W.M.D.s in Iraq in 2003.

History:

.) quotes by Blix, El Baradei, Chirac,

.) no W.M.D.s found in Iraq,

prove me right.

So, pomerro's and your political binders are wrong.

I was and I am right.

[boloboffin]

Hey, Ion, this is like the third or fourth time that you've assaulted this thread with multiple posts that could have been a single one.

Learn to use the Multiple Quote button, located to the right of the Quote button. Click it in every post you want to respond to, in the order you'd like to respond to them in, and then hit any Quote button. Each of the quoted posts will appear in a single edit window, and you won't look like you're flooding the thread.

[pomeroo]

I simply refuse to recycle the entire thread on the missing W.M.D.s to continue arguing with a mentally-ill person, pomeroo.
Note that he clings to his often-repeated lie regarding the U.N..
I posted the link to an article that pointed out that French intel conlcuded that Saddam retained W.M.D. that aren't any good.
pomy then used the article that refuted his lie about French intel believing that there no W.M.D.s any good to support his own position.
Now, if you want to point out to this lunatic pomy that the U.N. was able to give Saddam a clean bill of health, don't waste your time.
It has been done many times: pomeroo simply ignores the fact that his falsehoods have been exposed and goes on repeating them.


Your deranged parrot routine has made you a laughingstock.

YOU posted the link to the article that pointed out that FRENCH INTEL CONCLUDED THAT SADDAM RETAINED WMD. < YOU > !!

THE U.N. VERY MUCH WANTED TO GIVE SADDAM A CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH BUT < IT COULD NOT > . WILL YOU EVER GET IT?

THE U.N. < COULD NOT > AND < DID NOT > GIVE SADDAM A CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH.

YOUR FALSEHOOD HAS BEEN EXPOSED.

NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU WANT TO CHANGE HISTORY, YOU CAN'T !!!

[pomeroo]

Liar.
You have been exposed.
Blix said there were no W.M.D.s any good in Iraq.


Stop mindlessly repeating this illiterate gibberish! BLIX WANTED TO DERAIL BUSH"S INVASION, BUT SADDAM WOULD NOT COOPERATE.


[quote=Ion;3393717]
Per the quotes I gave.

Revisionist pomeroo wants Blix's and El Baradei's quotes in U.N. in February 2003 to disappear, but they are recorded in history as opposing Bush's and pomeroo's imperialist war.


NOBODY at the U.N. claimed that Saddam had no WMD.

NOBODY!!!

[Pardalis]

This is pointless, Ron.

[pomeroo]

Comparing me with pomerro is easily the weightiest insult I have received on these forums and the most unjust.
You are comparing me to someone who mindlessly repeats the same falsehood after it has been completely refuted.
For sane people, the statement that the U.N. claimed that Saddam had no W.M.D.s is answered by:
yes, Saddam had no W.M.D.s.

I showed the U.N. quotes, and pomeroo can't delete them.


YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN "U.N. QUOTES" CLAIMING THAT SADDAM HAD NO WMD BECAUSE NO SUCH QUOTES EXIST!!!

[pomeroo]

This is pointless, Ron.


Will someone besides me ever point out to this madman that Hans Blix is a real person and what he said in the run-up to the invasion is a matter of historical record? Whether you agree with my overall position is immaterial. This lunatic keeps stating outright falsehoods, falsehoods that have been exposed repeatedly. He posts a link to an article that states that French intel had concluded that Saddam retained WMD. He keeps trying to use this information to support his own dishonest position that French intel had concluded exactly the opposite. There is an ethics of rhetoric, you know.

[Elind]

Well, I actually was going to comment. Then Ion jumped in and it's ... well, why comment?

Pomeroo: I'm not trying to insult you. It's more... well, you and Ion both have political binders. (Granted, yours is not as bad)

Anyway, just to answer the OP: There was NEVER 100% proof that Iraq had no WMD's. While they did push the Intelligence a bit too aggressively for what proof they had.. you couldn't say with certainty that they had no WMD's. (Or that they had them)

There is 100% certainty that they HAD HAD them and 100% certainty that they HAD used them.

Some people seem to think that all it takes is for the likes of Saddam's regime to say they are clean, and that they then should simply be believed, and then be trusted to stay clean. Amazing that Blix seemed to think that way.

I do however agree that attempts to debate (or whatever it approximates) with the likes of Ion is pointless.

[boloboffin]

Ion is no more, Ron.

[pomeroo]

Bush shouldn't have made them.

They are wrong.


No, they were not wrong.



By your token Bush can use these sixteeen words that are wrong because the British -not Bush- made the claim, exactly in the same manner that Bush can use Hitler's opinions because they are Hitler's -not Bush's-.

Whoever uses the claim, is guilty of the false claim.

Bush is guilty of the false claim.


This incoherent gibberish reveals you for what you are.

[Pardalis]

Will someone besides me ever point out to this madman

There you go, this is why it is pointless.

[pomeroo]

There is 100% certainty that they HAD HAD them and 100% certainty that they HAD used them.

Some people seem to think that all it takes is for the likes of Saddam's regime to say they are clean, and that they then should simply be believed, and then be trusted to stay clean. Amazing.

I do however agree that attempts to debate (or whatever it approximates) with the likes of Ion is pointless.


Saddam, as the interview with George Piro makes clear, adamantly refused to say that he was clean. He didn't want other nations, particularly Iran, to think he was clean. The point I hammered home to Ion is that Hans Blix and the rest of the U.N. wanted dearly to embarrass Bush. Nothing would have pleased Blix better than to be able to announce that Saddam had cooperated with the inspectors. Saddam had his reasons for not cooperating. Ion's maniacal refusal to confront reality is all-too characteristic of the extreme America-hating left.

[a_unique_person]

The Bush administration includes the House and the Senate right? So they all lied. Where do we go from here? Maybe we can fire them all and start from sratch with a new batch.

BTW Dick Durbin is one of them. Maybe he's lying too.

Sad, isn't it? They went along with it all because the polls told them to, and they were worried about the attack ads if they didn't at the next election.

[pomeroo]

There you go, this is why it is pointless.


As you know, all of us rationalists deal with irrational people on the Conspiracy forum. But, very few of them repeat over and over the exact falsehood that has been thoroughly debunked. Yes, they modify it a bit, or vanish for a while, only to return with the same recycled nonsense. For someone to make his all-purpose response to everything one endlessly-repeated falsehood suggests mental illness. It's one thing to sweep inconvenient evidence under the rug. This guy posts the evidence that destroys his own argument and then blithely proceeds to pretend it isn't there. How can anyone post a quote that says something flatly different from what he claims it says? It makes no sense. Doesn't he think we're capable of reading it for ourselves? How can the guy keep arguing that he's posting quotes that show that the U.N. didn't believe that Saddam retained WMD when his quotes show nothing of the sort? Apart from questioning the sanity of such a person, what's to be done? A terrible mistake is to assume that Ion is alone in adopting this maddeningly irrational approach to argumentation. It's the way dangerous extremists operate.

[pomeroo]

AGAIN, AS A PART OF U.S. BRAIWASHING PROPAGANDA BLIX ALLEGEDLY MADE THE ROUNDS OF ALL THE POLITICAL TALK SHOWS TO COMPLAIN THAT SADDAM WAS < NOT > COOPERATING WITH THE INSPECTORS.
THE AMERICA-HATING RADICAL POMEROO BELIEVES THAT SADDAM WAS ANY TERRORIST INSTEAD OF A SIMPLE DICTATOR.
HE WILL RE-WRITE HISTORY TO SUPPORT HIS LIES.


How can a sane human claim that Blix "allegedly" made the rounds of the political talk shows? Blix really did make the rounds. Anyone who was alive and politically-conscious in 2003 saw Blix make the rounds.
If you start out, as Ion does, from a position of fanatic, unreasoning hatred of America, what is the point of accusing the conservative you're trying to demonize of being an America-hater?

[a_unique_person]

Saddam, as the interview with George Piro makes clear, adamantly refused to say that he was clean. He didn't want other nations, particularly Iran, to think he was clean. The point I hammered home to Ion is that Hans Blix and the rest of the U.N. wanted dearly to embarrass Bush. Nothing would have pleased Blix better than to be able to announce that Saddam had cooperated with the inspectors. Saddam had his reasons for not cooperating. Ion's maniacal refusal to confront reality is all-too characteristic of the extreme America-hating left.

WTF. The invective was flowing all the way from the Bush administration towards the UN and Blix.

[pomeroo]

WTF. The invective was flowing all the way from the Bush administration towards the UN and Blix.


I'm not following you. Bush and Blix were at loggerheads: Bush wanted to invade Iraq, topple Saddam, and display the WMD to the world; Blix, like most U.N. functionaries over the decades, wanted to stick his finger in Uncle Sam's eye. Blix had no fondness for Saddam. He simply wanted to derail an U.S.-led initiative to rock the boat in the Middle East. The business of the U.N. required maintaining the status quo.

[twinstead]

I don't venture too often into the politics forum, but Ion's childish game of repeating what you say and simply changine the word Ion to the name of whoever posted is a work of art.

What economy of typing! It's almost as if he is a computer program...

uh oh. I think this thread may be heading back to the conspiracy forum.

[a_unique_person]

I'm not following you. Bush and Blix were at loggerheads: Bush wanted to invade Iraq, topple Saddam, and display the WMD to the world; Blix, like most U.N. functionaries over the decades, wanted to stick his finger in Uncle Sam's eye. Blix had no fondness for Saddam. He simply wanted to derail an U.S.-led initiative to rock the boat in the Middle East. The business of the U.N. required maintaining the status quo.

Sounds like fiction to me.

[pomeroo]

Sounds like fiction to me.


Why? It sounds completely correct to me. Tell me more.

[Kestrel]

I'm not following you. Bush and Blix were at loggerheads: Bush wanted to invade Iraq, topple Saddam, and display the WMD to the world; Blix, like most U.N. functionaries over the decades, wanted to stick his finger in Uncle Sam's eye. Blix had no fondness for Saddam. He simply wanted to derail an U.S.-led initiative to rock the boat in the Middle East. The business of the U.N. required maintaining the status quo.

This would be an interesting theory if Blix had been lying and Iraq really did have WMDs. Now that we know for certain that Blix was correct and Bush was wrong, there is no need to explain the motive behind Blix's reports.

That being said, speculation about Bush's motives is still a good topic for discussion.

[pomeroo]

This would be an interesting theory if Blix had been lying and Iraq really did have WMDs. Now that we know for certain that Blix was correct and Bush was wrong, there is no need to explain the motive behind Blix's reports.

That being said, speculation about Bush's motives is still a good topic for discussion.


What was Blix "correct" about? He never claimed, contrary to the falsehoods of the demented Ion, that Iraq had no WMD. During the run-up to the invasion, nobody was saying that we would not find any weapons. The loony-left, e.g. Janeane Garofalo, was assuring us that thousands of Americans would be killed by Saddam's terrible arsenal. Blix wanted to delay and delay and delay. His goal was to prevent Saddam's overthrow.

[a_unique_person]

Why? It sounds completely correct to me. Tell me more.

I'm sure it sounds correct to you, but there's no evidence to support the claim.

[a_unique_person]

What was Blix "correct" about? He never claimed, contrary to the falsehoods of the demented Ion, that Iraq had no WMD. During the run-up to the invasion, nobody was saying that we would not find any weapons. The loony-left, e.g. Janeane Garofalo, was assuring us that thousands of Americans would be killed by Saddam's terrible arsenal. Blix wanted to delay and delay and delay. His goal was to prevent Saddam's overthrow.

Blix was correct in the sense that he only went on the evidence, rather than going with the hare brained rants that emanated from the Bush Administration. Andrew Wilkie was disgusted at the political manipulation of the evidence that was presented by the security agencies to turn possibilities into definites.

[pomeroo]

Blix was correct in the sense that he only went on the evidence, rather than going with the hare brained rants that emanated from the Bush Administration. Andrew Wilkie was disgusted at the political manipulation of the evidence that was presented by the security agencies to turn possibilities into definites.



Empty rhetoric. The bipartisan Robb-Silberman committee determined that intelligence findings were not manipulated. Blix said only that Saddam was not cooperating with the inspections.

[a_unique_person]

Empty rhetoric. The bipartisan Robb-Silberman committee determined that intelligence findings were not manipulated. Blix said only that Saddam was not cooperating with the inspections.

No, the findings were manipulated, routinely. Ask Andrew Wilkie, that's why he resigned. Robb-Silberman? Both sides had to PYA after the Iraq fiasco, since they both were too afraid of the ruthless Bush administration and to actually stand up and ask the hard questions after 9/11.

George Tenet was just giving the administration what they wanted to hear, like all good underlings at that time. You had a whole Congress as well.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:dNjQv_VjtjgJ:www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/+powell+un+presentation+cia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au&client=firefox-a

Why was it only Powell who pinned Tenet down? You had a whole administration there, but only one person thought to check the facts? Even then, it's clear that all you had to do was ask a question, and the qualifications were there in the evidence.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2003/transcripts/s976015.htm
The aluminium tubes fiasco.


PROF. HOUSTON WOOD: The gas would just be leaking out of the rotor. And you'd have to have pumps to continually pump that. Scientifically, these tubes do not fit the mould of gas centrifuges - you know, period.

LIZ JACKSON: Professor Wood filed his report, and the months went by. Come the middle of 2002, more than a year after the tubes had been seized, the debate had fallen off the radar screen of the intelligence agencies.

GREG THIELMANN: And at that time, we had a very strong feeling that there was a growing consensus within not only the US intelligence community, but also among our close allies with whom we shared a lot of the results. And the consensus was that this was not bound for the nuclear weapons program.

LIZ JACKSON: And those close allies would include Australia?

GREG THIELMANN: That's right.

LIZ JACKSON: But in August, the political climate changed. As Americans moved into autumn, their political leaders started preparing the public for war with Iraq.

US VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: Many of us are convinced that Saddam Hussein will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail.

LIZ JACKSON: The pivotal speech was Vice President Cheney's address to the war veterans on August 26th, raising the nuclear spectre.

DAVID ALBRIGHT: If you want to stir up a war, then nuclear's always the flagship. Everybody in the Middle East has chemical or biological weapons, and they're not decisive. And so it's really always the difference between some concern and a lot of concern - if you can pin a nuclear weapons program or pin...even worse, show that the country's close to nuclear weapons.

LIZ JACKSON: And how important do you think the tubes were, the aluminium tubes were, in making that case?

DAVID ALBRIGHT: I think they were at the core.

LIZ JACKSON: Two weeks after Cheney's speech, the Bush administration leaked the story of the aluminium tubes to the New York Times. It was front-page news. Anonymous officials were quoted saying there was new information that Iraq had embarked on a worldwide hunt for material to make an atomic bomb, and that the specifications of the aluminium tubes had persuaded American intelligence experts that the tubes were for Iraq's nuclear program. Administration officials warned, "The first sign of a 'smoking gun'...may be a mushroom cloud." There was no mention of any debate or dissension about the tubes at all.

PROF. HOUSTON WOOD: My first thought was, "This must be some new tubes", you know. And then...and then when I realised that these were the tubes that I had been looking at a year before, I was just...I was...I was just shocked. I couldn't believe that, you know, here we were, saying that these tubes were, you know, the same tubes that I'd come to the conclusion a year before were not valid for centrifuges, and here they're saying they are. So, er...that was a real surprise.

LIZ JACKSON: Later on the same day that the New York Times published, Condoleezza Rice went on CNN.

DR CONDOLEEZZA RICE, US NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: There have been shipments of high-quality aluminium tubes that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.

LIZ JACKSON: And a phrase began to echo.

DR CONDOLEEZZA RICE: We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

LIZ JACKSON: Later that night, Dick Cheney was on NBC.

US VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: He now is trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium...to make the bombs.

REPORTER: Aluminium tubes?

US VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Specifically, aluminium tubes. The story in the New York Times...

LIZ JACKSON: The following day, Australia picked up on the story.

REPORTER: We heard from the US Vice President, Dick Cheney, and he confirmed a report in the New York Times that Saddam Hussein has been attempting to get equipment to enrich uranium.

JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA: Well, look, I can't answer that. It's material that's come out in the United States. But I do know this - that it, if accurate, confirms the intelligence that we have been given to the effect that Iraq has not abandoned her aspiration for nuclear capacity. There's no doubt, on the evidence, on the intelligence material available to us, that not only does Iraq possess chemical and biological weapons, but Iraq also has not abandoned her nuclear aspirations. And the question of how far she is from achieving that aspiration I can't tell you, and perhaps nobody can. But nothing can alter the fact that she is seeking it.

LIZ JACKSON (To Greg Thielmann): Would that have been your understanding of the Australian intelligence community's understanding of the issue?

GREG THIELMANN: I can't comment on to what extent this was fully subscribed to within the Australian intelligence community. I do know that the Australians knew about the dissenting positions of the Intelligence Bureau, the State Department and the Department of Energy.

[pomeroo]

No, the findings were manipulated, routinely. Ask Andrew Wilkie, that's why he resigned. Robb-Silberman? Both sides had to PYA after the Iraq fiasco, since they both were too afraid of the ruthless Bush administration and to actually stand up and ask the hard questions after 9/11.

George Tenet was just giving the administration what they wanted to hear, like all good underlings at that time. You had a whole Congress as well.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:dNjQv_VjtjgJ:www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/+powell+un+presentation+cia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au&client=firefox-a

Why was it only Powell who pinned Tenet down? You had a whole administration there, but only one person thought to check the facts? Even then, it's clear that all you had to do was ask a question, and the qualifications were there in the evidence.


All right, it has been shown that the intel was not manipulated. This conclusion is inconvenient to your emotion-driven agenda. Tell us someday why Bush tried to lose the 2004 election.

[a_unique_person]

All right, it has been shown that the intel was not manipulated. This conclusion is inconvenient to your emotion-driven agenda. Tell us someday why Bush tried to lose the 2004 election.



PROF. HOUSTON WOOD: The gas would just be leaking out of the rotor. And you'd have to have pumps to continually pump that. Scientifically, these tubes do not fit the mould of gas centrifuges - you know, period.



Intelligence officers knew the tubes were not for centrifuges. Yet the same tubes turn up later as evidence of a weapons program? It's not the intelligence officers who were responsible for that.

[a_unique_person]

dup

[a_unique_person]

Andrew Wilkie "Axis of Deceit".

P83



An important consideration here is the the technical difficulty of rebuilding, hiding and supplying and operating chemical and biological facilities on such as scale as to constitute a genuine national WMD programme. Washington, London and Canberra fostered the impression that such an undertaking was not a difficult one for an evil dictator with lots of oil money. But this is downright misleading. For the Iraqis to rebuild the WMD programme since 1978, virtually from scratch, would have been a substantial undertaking. Tellingly, even the US never perfected the weaponisation of anthrax, although it devoted enormous resources to this and it had no need to hide its WMD programmes - hence in part it's decision to end its offensive biological weapons programme and sign the BWC.

[pomeroo]

Andrew Wilkie "Axis of Deceit".

P83


He is being extremely dishonest. Saddam required no rebuilding "from scratch." As his interview with George Piro makes clear, Saddam was poised to resume his programs the moment the sanctions regime collapsed. All the personnel were in place.

[a_unique_person]

He is being extremely dishonest. Saddam required no rebuilding "from scratch." As his interview with George Piro makes clear, Saddam was poised to resume his programs the moment the sanctions regime collapsed. All the personnel were in place.

He is being extremely honest. Saddam may have wanted to rebuild, his ability to do so was severely limited by the physical impossibilityof being able to do so in a short period of time. Even if, for example, he had the anthrax program moving again, no-one had yet worked out how to weaponise it.

[a_unique_person]

"Axis of Deciet" p70 in which he quotes Dick Clarke.



about By the afternoon on Wednesday [after Sept. 11], Secretary Rumsfeld was talking about broadening the objectives of our response and "getting Iraq." Secretary Powell pushed back, urging a focus on al Qaeda. Relieved to have some support, I thanked Colin Powell. "I thought I was missing something here," I vented. "Having been attacked by al Qaeda, for us now to go bombing Iraq in response would be like our invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor."Powell shook his head. "It's not over yet." Indeed, it was not. Later in the day, Secy. Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets. At first I thought Rumsfeld was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq. Instead, he noted that what we needed to do with Iraq was to change the government, not just hit it with more cruise missiles, as Rumsfeld had implied.