To lie implies, again, they knew for a fact, that Iraq did not have WMD.
That, they did not know. They, in the high levels of the administration, truly believed Iraq had WMDs.
Any evidence to the contrary, did not get up the food chain, or was deemed non-credible.
They also really believed the exiles and what they said.

All of this says more they were inept, than deceptive.

I still think, and you can tell from the interviews Bush gave after he left office, he feels really bad about how they went in. He says it is all on him, and accepts responsibility. He didn't lie, he just didn't get the right info.

believer;1169133 wrote:If that happens (50/50 at best

Your understanding of political odds =

believer;1169133 wrote:If that happens (50/50 at best which is terrible odds for an incumbent POTUS) let's hope a Republican-controlled Congress will make his second term 4 years of lame duck futility.

Not thread related, but even if Romney is elected, he isn't getting squat done in Congress.

ptown_trojans_1;1169186 wrote:I still think, and you can tell from the interviews Bush gave after he left office, he feels really bad about how they went in. He says it is all on him, and accepts responsibility. He didn't lie, he just didn't get the right info.

Wholeheartedly agree.

I also think that Bush II wanted to finish the job that he thought his father should have done. He took full advantage of the "9-11 mood" in this country at that time to justify going in and eliminating the regional instability caused by a clearly insane Saddam Hussein.

Where Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney & Co. failed, in my opinion, is that they did not have a clear exit plan in place. Had we simply gone in, eliminated Saddam Hussein, and gotten out, Bush would probably have been looked upon with much more favor.

ptown_trojans_1;1169222 wrote:Not thread related, but even if Romney is elected, he isn't getting squat done in Congress.

Suffice it to say neither candidate will. In other words, status quo. As long as Obama is kept in check, we'll at least know for certain he'll be gone 4 years from now.

And for all of your Purist Paulists out there who will say, "I told you so", even if your candidate had been by some miracle elected POTUS, he would face the very same highly polarized political stalemate.

I don't know. Obama's divisiveness and class warfare rhetoric does absolutely nothing to facilitate compromise. The POTUS needs to exercise leadership and call both sides to the mat to gather public support for change. Romney might not be up to the task, but we KNOW Obama isn't.

^^^Oh, I would agree with that, Gut.

I honestly think Romney would have a better chance of working both sides of the aisle. Obama points fingers, lays blame, chastises, ridicules, and certainly uses the tried and true leftist talking points like class warfare in a failed effort to shame his opposition into submission.

I suspect that Romney will be far more diplomatic in his approach to working with Congress even if his policies aren't likely to please either the right or the left.

I'm no Romney cheerleader, but one thing is certain.....Obama has been an abject failure and needs to find new communities to organize.

ptown_trojans_1;1169186 wrote:To lie implies, again, they knew for a fact, that Iraq did not have WMD.
That, they did not know

They claimed...for a fact....that Iraq did have WMD's. They also knew...for a fact..that the UN was proving their stated fact to be completely false in January, February, and early March of 2003. Yet, they invaded anyway. When their house of cards unraveled, their lies intensified...which is typically the case one one digs themselves a hole.

You can sugar coat it any way you want to Ptowne....but these people lied regarding the main reasons for annihilating Iraq, destroying their country, and killing their civilians.

I do agree that Bush the 43rd deserves credit for keeping his mouth shut today. He knows what he did...and he knows that he is as guilty as sin. Unlike the Cheneys of the world.

These quotes are for PTowne. PTowne, please respond to the following...and explain to me that it was somehow OK to assert that Saddam Hussein, with 100% certainty. had WMD..and was an imminent threat...as was promised to the Congress and the American public.

...."The International Atomic Energy Agency declared in 1998 that Iraq’s nuclear program had been completely dismantled. The UN Special Commission on Iraq estimated then that at least 95 percent of Iraq’s chemical weapons program had been similarly accounted for and destroyed. Iraq’s potential to develop biological weapons is a much bigger question mark, since such a program is much easier to hide. However, UNSCOM noted in 1998 that virtually all of Iraq’s offensive missiles and other delivery systems had been accounted for and rendered inoperable.

• Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, told the U.N. Security Council in late January 2003 that, “We have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapon program since the elimination of the program in the 1990’s.” He also “put the kibosh” on the administration’s charge that Iraq was seeking aluminum tubes for nuclear weapon development. Eleven days before the invasion, he repeated his assertion that there was absolutely no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program.

• Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said in 2003 of his inspections leading up to the invasion, “The commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items, whether from pre-1991 or later.”

• Scott Ritter, who was chief weapons inspector in Iraq in 1991 and 1998, added this, about the world’s intelligence agencies: “[W]e knew that while we couldn’t account for everything that the Iraqis said they had destroyed, we could only account for 90 to 95 percent, we knew that: (a) we had no evidence of a retained capability and, (b) no evidence that Iraq was reconstituting. And furthermore, the C.I.A. knew this. The British intelligence knew this; Israeli intelligence knew this; German intelligence. The whole world knew this.”

So, in short, the claim that “everyone agreed” that the evidence of Iraqi WMD was incontrovertible is simply false. It’s another example of the kind of lazy, gullible reporting in the face of a campaign of deliberate deception that got us into this horrific mess in the first place."

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/alterman_wmds.html

And I don't want to hear anything about this website. What is cited are not opinions, but official declassified documents.

Footwedge;1169523 wrote:They claimed...for a fact....that Iraq did have WMD's. They also knew...for a fact..that the UN was proving their stated fact to be completely false in January, February, and early March of 2003. Yet, they invaded anyway. When their house of cards unraveled, their lies intensified...which is typically the case one one digs themselves a hole.

You can sugar coat it any way you want to Ptowne....but these people lied regarding the main reasons for annihilating Iraq, destroying their country, and killing their civilians.

I do agree that Bush the 43rd deserves credit for keeping his mouth shut today. He knows what he did...and he knows that he is as guilty as sin. Unlike the Cheneys of the world.

No, even when the UN said there were no weapons found, yet, they said they still needed more time and they were unsure of the final verdict.
Plus, by that time, the minds were made up, given all the intelligence provided that led to one conclusion.
By Jan. all the evidence seemed to signal WMD, and there was no one, of authority, in the U.S. that said whoa, stop, maybe all this intelligence is flawed and not right.
It was a self fulfilling prophecy. Faulty assumptions were piled on top of faulty assumptions. There was no way the UN was going to say anything that would have led the U.S. or the world for that matter, to stop.

Maybe, if Saddam had let in the inspections post 9/11, perhaps then, we could have had more evidence to provide the Bush WH.
But, they seriously, honestly believed Saddam had WMD, and thought even if the UN says there is none, that Saddam is still hiding them.

That is not a lie, that is just ignoring all the facts, and not having all the facts.

Come on man, I bash the Bush WH too, but this is a wee too far.

Besides, to obtain a real objective view on it, we need to wait many years. Just now are we starting to really dive into Nam.

Footwedge;1169553 wrote:These quotes are for PTowne. PTowne, please respond to the following...and explain to me that it was somehow OK to assert that Saddam Hussein, with 100% certainty. had WMD..and was an imminent threat...as was promised to the Congress and the American public.

...."The International Atomic Energy Agency declared in 1998 that Iraq’s nuclear program had been completely dismantled. The UN Special Commission on Iraq estimated then that at least 95 percent of Iraq’s chemical weapons program had been similarly accounted for and destroyed. Iraq’s potential to develop biological weapons is a much bigger question mark, since such a program is much easier to hide. However, UNSCOM noted in 1998 that virtually all of Iraq’s offensive missiles and other delivery systems had been accounted for and rendered inoperable.

• Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, told the U.N. Security Council in late January 2003 that, “We have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapon program since the elimination of the program in the 1990’s.” He also “put the kibosh” on the administration’s charge that Iraq was seeking aluminum tubes for nuclear weapon development. Eleven days before the invasion, he repeated his assertion that there was absolutely no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program.

• Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said in 2003 of his inspections leading up to the invasion, “The commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items, whether from pre-1991 or later.”

• Scott Ritter, who was chief weapons inspector in Iraq in 1991 and 1998, added this, about the world’s intelligence agencies: “[W]e knew that while we couldn’t account for everything that the Iraqis said they had destroyed, we could only account for 90 to 95 percent, we knew that: (a) we had no evidence of a retained capability and, (b) no evidence that Iraq was reconstituting. And furthermore, the C.I.A. knew this. The British intelligence knew this; Israeli intelligence knew this; German intelligence. The whole world knew this.”

So, in short, the claim that “everyone agreed” that the evidence of Iraqi WMD was incontrovertible is simply false. It’s another example of the kind of lazy, gullible reporting in the face of a campaign of deliberate deception that got us into this horrific mess in the first place."

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/alterman_wmds.html

And I don't want to hear anything about this website. What is cited are not opinions, but official declassified documents.

Oh, I agree. But, by that point, the wheels were in motion. Saddam waited too late.
Bush thought, that the UN didn't find the weapons because Saddam was so good at hiding them, like he did in the early 90s.

Bush didn't think the IAEA was correct. He thought they were inept and not looking hard enough. That's not a lie.

ptown_trojans_1;1169567 wrote:Oh, I agree. But, by that point, the wheels were in motion. Saddam waited too late.
Bush thought, that the UN didn't find the weapons because Saddam was so good at hiding them, like he did in the early 90s.

Bush didn't think the IAEA was correct. He thought they were inept and not looking hard enough. That's not a lie.

So 'the wheels were in motion". Yes they were. Hardly a reason to go forward with this. When defense secretary says "yes, he's got them"..."they're in Baghdad...and Tikrit"...at the same time the inspectors on the ground were saying "there is no evidence at all..that they have them (even if only 95% certainty), that to me is a lie.

If Bush thought the IAEA was incorrect, he had ample time to do due dilligence before starting this unnecessary and unwinnable war. He failed to do so.

And as my links above clearly indicated...our own inspectors also stated the same thing as the International Atomic Energy Commission.

And....I haven't even touched on the aluminum tubes whopper.

To PTownw, Hits, Believer and the others that disagree with me. I'm in your respective corner that Saddam was as dispicable as a dictator could be. He was brutal...and he simply tortured and murdered all political dissidents. In 1998, under Newt's Congress, there was an official calling for regime change in Iraq. But....there was no notation thatv war was part of that equation.

As I stated many times....go to war based on the evidence known. This is where I have an issue. The facts are clear...and were clear at that time. Iraq was no threat to our country via WMD and that Saddam was a bitter enemy of Al-Quada, a radical terrorist Shia Muslim group. Saddam was Sunni.

I never thought we took out Saddam Hussein because he was an al-Qaeda suspect. Saddam Hussein was secular rogue dictator who terrorized his people.

As far as WMD's are concerned the Clinton's, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Madeline Albright, Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, John Kerry and many more lefties also bought-off on the faulty WMD intelligence reports LONG before Bush's eeeeevil neo-cons pulled the trigger.

It's done, it's over. The world hasn't melted down. Iraq still exists and is arguably better off without their thug dictator popping off his AK-47 in the air and gassing the Kurds.

I never thought we took out Saddam Hussein because he was an al-Qaeda suspect. Saddam Hussein was secular rogue dictator who terrorized his people.

As far as WMD's are concerned the Clinton's, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Madeline Albright, Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, John Kerry and many more lefties also bought-off on the faulty WMD intelligence reports LONG before Bush's eeeeevil neo-cons had the balls to pull the trigger.

It's done, it's over. The world hasn't melted down. Iraq still exists and is arguably better off without their thug dictator popping off rounds from his AK-47...and, of course, gassing the Kurds.

I never thought we took out Saddam Hussein because he was an al-Qaeda suspect. Saddam Hussein was a rogue secular dictator who terrorized his people.

As far as WMD's are concerned the Clinton's, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Madeline Albright, Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, John Kerry and many more lefties also bought-off on the faulty WMD intelligence reports LONG before Bush's eeeeevil neo-cons had the testicular fortitude to pull the trigger.

It's done, it's over. The world hasn't melted down.

Iraq still exists and is arguably better off without their thug dictator arrogantly popping off rounds from his AK-47...and, of course, gassing the Kurds for shits and grins.

Footwedge;1169023 wrote:That is exactly what we did. No hyperbole at all. Did we kill all the Japs in WWII?. Did we kill all the Germans? Of course not. But those countries were in fact annihilated...same as Iraq.

To you..that's hyperbole. To me....it is standard human logic from an unbiased based thought process.

It's hard to take your unbiased thought process seriously when you recklessly throw around the word "annihilate".

believer;1169121 wrote:annihilate

1. to reduce to utter ruin or nonexistence; destroy utterly
2. to destroy the collective existence or main body of; wipe out
3. to annul; make void
4. to cancel the effect of; nullify.
5. to defeat completely; vanquish

Iraq still exists. Saddam Hussein is dead. We have not wiped out the country. The Iraqi people have not been nullified nor is the country null & void.

The only thing that is true in that definition is that we did, in fact, completely defeat the Iraqi army and the Republican Guard.

You can attempt to play upon my "Christian sensibilities" all you want. I've gone on record as largely disagreeing with the decision to enter Iraq which you conveniently ignore.

God may not be on our side, but eliminating human vermin like Saddam Hussein and preventing him from terrorizing his own people and his neighbors is hardly immoral.

I simply disagree with your exaggerated "eeeevil neo-con" mantra....IE: hyperbole.

But, with all due respect, feel free to keep beating your overly zealous righteous dead horse.

Winner.

ptown_trojans_1;1169186 wrote:I still think, and you can tell from the interviews Bush gave after he left office, he feels really bad about how they went in. He says it is all on him, and accepts responsibility. He didn't lie, he just didn't get the right info.

I respect GWB for this, a little more than those who write CYA memoirs essentially saying, "Not my fault. I tried to talk them out of it, they wouldn't listen. Don't blame me for Iraq."

jhay78;1170769 wrote:It's hard to take your unbiased thought process seriously when you recklessly throw around the word "annihilate"

And it's pretty hard to take people seriously who somehow deny the utter destruction and annihilation Iraq has undertaken.....given these facts. Too many people don't give a shit.

Number of dead Iraqi civilians...650,000

QUALITY OF LIFE INDICATORS
Iraqis Displaced Inside Iraq, by Iraq War, as of May 2007 - 2,255,000
Iraqi Refugees in Syria & Jordan - 2.1 million to 2.25 million
Iraqi Unemployment Rate - 27 to 60%, where curfew not in effect
Consumer Price Inflation in 2006 - 50%
Iraqi Children Suffering from Chronic Malnutrition - 28% in June 2007 (Per CNN.com, July 30, 2007)
Percent of professionals who have left Iraq since 2003 - 40%
Iraqi Physicians Before 2003 Invasion - 34,000
Iraqi Physicians Who Have Left Iraq Since 2005 Invasion - 12,000
Iraqi Physicians Murdered Since 2003 Invasion - 2,000
Average Daily Hours Iraqi Homes Have Electricity - 1 to 2 hours, per Ryan Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (Per Los Angeles Times, July 27, 2007)
Average Daily Hours Iraqi Homes Have Electricity - 10.9 in May 2007
Average Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Have Electricity - 5.6 in May 2007
Pre-War Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Have Electricity - 16 to 24
Number of Iraqi Homes Connected to Sewer Systems - 37%
Iraqis without access to adequate water supplies - 70% (Per CNN.com, July 30, 2007)
Water Treatment Plants Rehabilitated - 22%
RESULTS OF POLL Taken in Iraq in August 2005 by the British Ministry of Defense (Source: Brookings Institute)
Iraqis "strongly opposed to presence of coalition troops - 82%
Iraqis who believe Coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security - less than 1%
Iraqis who feel less secure because of the occupation - 67%
Iraqis who do not have confidence in multi-national forces - 72%

No no no...no annihlation there at all. But who cares? Our intel was "the best we had" right? Wrong. The intelligence was a pile of rotten lies...used by the neocons and there lust for death and misery for a country with the population of 27 million. Fuck em, right? What a joke the ignorant American chickenhawks are.

Iraq has been completely and thoroughly brutalized and annihilated, and the ignorant masses don't care.

[video=youtube;hgpWyB56KdI][/video]

....and again...it's all post war management

What it boils down to is the word lie.
Lie implies the Bush Administration knew for a fact that Iraq did not have WMD and simply ignored it despite all the official warning signs.
The truth is, that was far from what happened.
At the high level, all of the U.S. IC concured that Iraq had WMD. The Bush administration honestly believed Iraq had WMD.
Even though the IAEA said what a minute, to the Bush WH, the IAEA had little or no credibility as Iraq had built the program under their watch.
So, again. Bush honestly believed Iraq had WMD.

Therefore, if that is the case, by definition, that is not a lie.


Besides, you are fighting the wrong fight.
The one thing we can all agree is is the war was completely waged the wrong way from 2003-2005. The CPA was a joke, and that is what caused the cluster.

in Malaysia, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and John Yoo have been convicted of war crimes. About time justice is served.

ptown_trojans_1;1171235 wrote:What it boils down to is the word lie.
Lie implies the Bush Administration knew for a fact that Iraq did not have WMD and simply ignored it despite all the official warning signs.
The truth is, that was far from what happened.
At the high level, all of the U.S. IC concured that Iraq had WMD. The Bush administration honestly believed Iraq had WMD.
Even though the IAEA said what a minute, to the Bush WH, the IAEA had little or no credibility as Iraq had built the program under their watch.
So, again. Bush honestly believed Iraq had WMD.

Therefore, if that is the case, by definition, that is not a lie.


Besides, you are fighting the wrong fight.
The one thing we can all agree is is the war was completely waged the wrong way from 2003-2005. The CPA was a joke, and that is what caused the cluster.

So...going to war and blowing 3 trillion was based on "well, I think they might have some really bad weapons" based on some hearsay drivle from 2 Iraqi defectors. Got it.
. Oh OK. When are we going into N. Korea? Pakistan? India? Russia? China? Or France for that matter. France is a much bigger imminent threat that Saddam was...with his bow and arrow artillary.

So easy to just turn the page, ain't it?

ptown_trojans_1;1171235 wrote:Besides, you are fighting the wrong fight.
The one thing we can all agree is is the war was completely waged the wrong way from 2003-2005. The CPA was a joke, and that is what caused the cluster.

this :thumbup:

Besides, you are fighting the wrong fight.
The one thing we can all agree is is the war was completely waged the wrong way from 2003-2005. The CPA was a joke, and that is what caused the cluster.

this again...:thumbup::thumbup: