Iraq War

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

If we viewed the "case" to go to war with Iraq as courtroom, the Bush admin would be the prosecution and congress would be the jury. Now, if the jury was given false and misleading evidence, how can we blame them for coming to the wrong verdict? The part about the false and misleading evidence has been proven and now they want to turn the verdict. Unfortunately, its too late.

The spin on "why" we went to Iraq has changed so many times that its hard to keep it straight. First and foremost, we were supposedly going because Sadaam was a threat to American security with weapons of mass destruction. After it was shown that indeed that was false, it became a mission to lead the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddaam's regime and liberate them with police zones and no bid contracts. Now why are we there?

Only the blind would see any end in sight. This is a mess that will be around for years to come. And the world knows that we created it.

i read that congress knew exactly what the intelligence really was--it wasn't faulty, they were told the same things as the prez. but the members felt they were between a rock and a hard place--dems especially thought that a no vote on the war would cost them the elections in '02--so they voted for the war, so they wouldn't be viewed as being soft on terror. the cia is their fall guy.
if the cia lied, don't you think their would have been investigations that would make the iran contra hearings look like a pta meeting???
and as for wmd's...how did we have such a good idea that saddam had these weapons? because we provided a lot of them! remember the iran/iraq war? (for some reason for many years we based our entire foreign policy on the 'enemy of my enemy is friend' system. incredibly flawed system!! it gained us afganistan and iraq.) remember the gassing of the kurds? gas is a wmd....

all the truths behind all this may never come out. what about oil for food? what about kofi annan and his son? the u.n. mess? what about russia and france worrying more about $ than doing what's right?

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i read that congress knew exactly what the intelligence really was--it wasn't faulty, they were told the same things as the prez. but the members felt they were between a rock and a hard place--dems especially thought that a no vote on the war would cost them the elections in '02--so they voted for the war, so they wouldn't be viewed as being soft on terror. the cia is their fall guy.
if the cia lied, don't you think their would have been investigations that would make the iran contra hearings look like a pta meeting???
and as for wmd's...how did we have such a good idea that saddam had these weapons? because we provided a lot of them! remember the iran/iraq war? (for some reason for many years we based our entire foreign policy on the 'enemy of my enemy is friend' system. incredibly flawed system!! it gained us afganistan and iraq.) remember the gassing of the kurds? gas is a wmd....

all the truths behind all this may never come out. what about oil for food? what about kofi annan and his son? the u.n. mess? what about russia and france worrying more about $ than doing what's right?

Danzig,
Here is what Congress was told, as quoted from G W Bush's State of the Union Address, 2003:
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."

In his previous State of the Union, he stated that there were three mobile weapons labs, numerous references to 9-11 and Iraq's complicity, anthrax...on and on.
You are certainly entitled to believe as you wish.
So am I.

[Downthestretch55]

Danzig,
Here's a list of the top 40 lies:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0730-06.htm

[Downthestretch55]

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/520/81/

[skippy3481]

Dts, is there a quote from bush saying he was 100% sure they had wmd's or that he simply thought they had them/was building them?

[Downthestretch55]

Skippy,
Read the commondreams link. The footnotes can be reached at the bottom of the article. It's two posts up.^

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by skippy3481

Dts, is there a quote from bush saying he was 100% sure they had wmd's or that he simply thought they had them/was building them?

Skippy,
I found this...

The following transcribed exchange took place on August 21, 2006, between President George W. Bush and members of the press.

* * * * * * * * * *

Q: Alot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

GWB: I square it because imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein, who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who had relations with Zawqawi.

Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the middle east.

Now look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was - the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.

But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq. And I also saw the need to advance a freedom agenda. And my answer to your question is that - Imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed three thousand of our citizens.

You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived, you know, the "stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned.

The terrorists attacked us and killed three thousand of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the middle east. They were....

Q: What did Iraq have to do with that?

GWB: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.
GWB: Nothing! Except for it's part of - and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a - Iraq - the lesson of September the 11th is: Take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.

Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill, to achieve an objective. I have made that case.

And one way to defeat that - you know, defeat resentment - is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government.

Now I said, going into Iraq, "We've got to take these threats seriously before they full materialize". I saw a threat.

I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world is better off without him. Now the question is: How do we succeed in Iraq?

And you don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete, like some in this political process are suggesting.

I need not comment further...DTS

[Downthestretch55]

I apologize that I didn't include Dubya as one of my favorite comedians over in "esoteric". Thsi one is pretty funny...if it's at Chuckie Cheese, I'm going!
Victory party!!! PARTY!!!!

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/11464/42/