Did Bush Lie About Iraq?
   
 
https://www.youtube.com/v/LgQw8EhPJWw
 

 

Yes. Nothing he said ever justified invading and murdering all those people and overthrowing their government. The world court should try and convict bush for crimes against peace and hang the bastard.

That sounds cool to me. Russians should be put on notice to clean their act up too.

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm


This should help

bush gets the death penalty, Cheney gets torture, THEN death penalty.
Cabinet members get death or life in prison, depending upon jury.
Congress gets a ticket.

 
That would include Hillary, Bill, Gore, and all Democrat Congress as well as Republican.

read the actual law then get back to me

and

bush admitted there were no wmds

https://www.youtube.com/v/Cwqh4wQPoQk

there NEVER were any wmds

Well Jim, I made it through nearly 3/4 of your latest batch of smoke.  About all I can say is that every single claim she made about the Bush administration not being culpable and not lying to the American public is wrong.  Every single accusation made against Bush and his administration has long ago been established, verified and re-verified.  He lied.  End of story.

 
Solidified in your own Hateful mind does not mean "Established" under the facts.  You still think Slavery was justified. So anything you solidify in your own head is worth trash anyways.

Your subject line is the lie.

why do right wingers keep lying about such obvious facts?  bush's own wmd inspector, with complete access, after the lying invasion bush authorized on his own authority as president using the war powers act, found no traces of usable wmds, no existing ways of producing any and no evidence that any attempt had been made to produce or possess any wmds since at the latest 1995.  here is bush's inspector duelfur's report to Congress:

Duelfer's report contradicted a number of specific claims administration officials made before the war.


It found, for example, that Iraq's "crash" program in 1991 to build a nuclear weapon before the Persian Gulf War was far from successful, and was nowhere near being months away from producing a weapon, as the administration asserted. Only micrograms of enriched uranium were produced and no weapon design was completed. The CIA and administration officials have said they were surprised by the advanced state of Iraq's pre-1991 nuclear program, which was discovered after the war, and therefore were more prone to overestimate Iraq's capability when solid proof was unavailable.


There also was no evidence that Iraq possessed or was developing a mobile biological weapons production system, an assertion Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and others made before the invasion. The two trailers that were found in early 2003 were "almost certainly designed and built . . . exclusively for the generation of hydrogen" gas.


Duelfer also found no information to support allegations that Iraq sought uranium from Africa or any other country after 1991, as Bush once asserted in a major speech before the invasion. The only two contacts with Niger that were discovered were an invitation to the president of Niger to visit Baghdad, and a visit to Baghdad by a Niger minister in 2001 seeking petroleum products for cash. There was one offer to Iraq of "yellowcake" uranium, and that was from a Ugandan businessman offering uranium from Congo. The deal was turned down, and the Ugandan was told that Baghdad was not interested because of the sanctions.


Nuclear Weapons


Despite the U.S. intelligence judgment that Iraq in 2002 had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program, Duelfer reported that after 1991, Baghdad's nuclear program had "progressively decayed." He added that the Iraq Survey Group investigators had found no evidence "to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."


Although some steps were taken that could have helped restart the nuclear program, using oil-for-food money, Duelfer concluded that his team "uncovered no indication that Iraq had resumed fissile material or nuclear weapons research and development activities since 1991."


Biological Weapons


Duelfer's report is the first U.S. intelligence assessment to state flatly that Iraq had secretly destroyed its biological and chemical weapons stocks in the early 1990s. There was some effort to restart the program in the early 1990's but by 1995, though, and under U.N. pressure, it abandoned its efforts.


The document rules out the possibility that biological or chemical weapons might have been hidden, or perhaps smuggled into another country, and it finds no evidence of secret biological laboratories or ongoing research that could be firmly linked to a weapons program.

furthermore, bush and cheney both admitted after the lying invasion there were no wmds.  so let us talk specifically about bush lying about wmds, since that is easy to prove, too.

The Iraq Resolution, though never applicable to Iraq since Iraq was never tied to 9/11, even by Bush or Cheney or Rice, according to their own statements after the lying invasion (although they are lying when they said they never tried Iraq to 9/11 before the lying invasion),did scare Saddam to allow Blix back into Iraq with complete access.  After 3 months on the ground, Blix had reported to the UN and to the world that no traces of wmds had been found or any banned long range missiles that could deliver them if they did exist.  After that report, Bush lied to the American people, and the world, when he claimed on March 17, 2003, that Iraq possessed some of the most dangerous weapons on the planet, WITHOUT A DOUBT....THERE IS THE OBVIOUS LIE.  WE KNOW THERE WAS NOTHING BUT DOUBT, IN FACT, WE KNOW THERE WERE NO WMDS!!  WE KNOW BUSH HAD TO HAVE DOUBT, BLIX HAD FOUND NO TRACES IN 3 MONTHS AND NOBODY COULD HAVE- THEY HAD NO WMDS!!  google bush's speech in Cincinatti on March 17, 2003.  He lies when he says there is no doubt Iraq has these wmds and that is why we have to attack them without UN consent or even the UN ending the Cease Fire with Iraq!!

Here in the words plainly written in the Iraq Resolution on record, is complete proof it never authorized any force to be used against Iraq.  Never.  From Day One.  It never applied to Iraq at all.  So, therefore, no person in Congress ever voted for the Iraq invasion. 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm)

Quote:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

[[Page 116 STAT. 1501]]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
    (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
    Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
    and encourages him in those efforts; and
    (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
    Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
    evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
    with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

There were no existing UN resolutions authorizing force. The US tried to get a new one. In its original
drafts the US sought permission to attack on its own and it was REJECTED. The US only got the UNSC to
demand WMD inspectors be allowed back into Iraq or there were would be dire consequences. The UNSC never
actually authorized force.

Quote:

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

    (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
    other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
    protect the national security of the United States against the
    continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
    enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
    resolutions regarding Iraq; and


Here Bush simply lied. The UN had acted. Inspectors were back in Iraq... and they were finding evidence that Saddam's WMDs had been destroyed back in 1991. But Bush had a timetable... the optimum time to invade would be in the early spring so the work of the Inspectors had to be sabotaged.

Quote:
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
    with the United States and other countries continuing to take
    the necessary actions against international terrorist and
    terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
    or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
    terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

The Iraq/911 connection was always untrue.  Bush and Rice both admitted they never believed it. 

About 727,000 results (0.92 seconds)
Bush: No Link Between Iraq, Sept. 11 Attacks | Fox News
www.foxnews.com/.../bush-no-link-between-iraq-sept (http://www.foxnews.com/.../bush-no-link-between-iraq-sept)...
Fox News Channel
Sep 17, 2003 - President Bush says administration has no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved ... Rice, asked about the same poll numbers, said, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9-11.
Bush: No Saddam Links To 9/11 - CBS News
www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-no-saddam-links-to-9-11/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-no-saddam-links-to-9-11/)

Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found - seattlepi.com
www.seattlepi.com/.../Bush-No-Iraq-link-to-9-1 (http://www.seattlepi.com/.../Bush-No-Iraq-link-to-9-1)...
Seattle Post‑Intelligencer
Sep 17, 2003 - Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found. President says Saddam had ties to al-Qaida, but apparently not to attacks .... White House National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, in an interview aired late Tuesday on ABC's "Nightline," ...
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_lin (https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_lin)...

At Last, It's Clear: No Tie Between Hussein and 9/11 - latimes
articles.latimes.com/2003/sep/21/opinion/le-bush21
Sep 21, 2003 - Re "No Proof Connects Iraq to 9/11, Bush Says," Sept. ... So, national security advisor Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald ... cornered into admitting they had no proof of any link between Hussein and 9/11 (Sept.

 
Did George W. Bush lie to America about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction?

Judith Miller, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, covered the lead up to the Iraq War for The New York Times, and settles once and for all the big lie about the war in Iraq.
 
And maybe you should talk to Bernie Sanders because he keeps saying Hillary Voted FOR the War in Iraq.  Of course he could just be another Liar of the Left, I'm willing to grant to grant you that..

Hmmmmm,  let me see......  You?? ?? ??    (Someone who is afraid the Aliens will stop talking to us)   Or Judith Miller......(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/smileys/Thinking/2.gif)            
Ummmmmmmmmm      Yeah,   Judith Miller wins...

let me ask you the obvious, dummy.  how can there be any evidence of wmds, even if some chick at the NY Times said so before the invasion, when bush and cheney and rice all admit there were none, about 10 years ago!!, and bush's own inspector, Charles Duelfur, after the lying invasion, with complete access, absolutely said there were none, had not been any attempt to make more, was no way to make more, and Iraq had ended all wmd possession and attempts to gain any wmds, since at the latest 1993 or so?  do you even see how stupid you are to believe someone who said before the war that Iraq had wmds, that they were sure they did?  even before blix could find no traces for 3 months before bush lied about there being no doubt? how can you be in such denial, dumbass?

I know she got big stuff wrong during the run-up to the '03 invasion of Iraq - she buttressed the Bush team's war plans by reporting in The New York Times that Saddam Hussein possessed, and/or was plotting to possess, weapons of mass destruction - and I know she has been publicly scorned ever since. Her own newspaper dumped her. One of her former colleagues, Maureen Dowd, labeled her a "woman of mass destruction."

So I was feeling a tad kind-hearted when I interviewed her last week on stage at the Free Library of Philadelphia. Still, I had a job to do. Those prewar stories, particularly the front-pager about how Saddam was (supposedly) buying aluminum tubes for the purpose of building nukes, were black marks on the news business. Anyone who believes the canard about "the liberal media" should read those stories - and, at first, Miller defended them in every respect. When the war was new, in 2003, she told American Journalism Review, "This (criticism) will blow over because my reporting was accurate."

But her defense is different now - more nuanced, shall we say. She told me that, as the national security reporter back in '02 and '03, she was "accurately conveying wrong information."

In other words, she said that she was wrong because her sources were wrong. The lesson, she said, is that "when you think you know the whole story, you probably don't. You know part of it, a first draft...When you go back and back and back, you see the nuances, the facts that contradict what you reported."

OK. I get it that journalism is not an exact science, especially when you're covering terrorism issues and your sources are working in the shadows with shadowy inexact evidence. Miller told me, "I was trying to tell Americans what kind of information the president, the government, was getting about WMDs. That was my job...Some of (my work) was right, some of it was wrong."

The problem, at least in retrospect, was that Miller gave insufficient attention to the dissenting sources who had doubts about WMDs. Which suggests that she relied too heavily on the insiders who were wired Bush neocon war team. (The Times felt that way, after the fact.)

Anyway. While talking to me, here's how she described that so-called aluminum-tubes-for-nukes scoop, in September '02: "We wrote that story and it got a lot of play, including from the administration. Then I began to hear that there was a problem - that there was some debate within the (intelligence) community about these tubes....Some rumors that there was some debate about some aspects of the intelligence.... So five days later I went back and did another story saying there's a big debate about these tubes inside the intelligence community."

Which still prompts the question: Why didn't she learn before writing the scoop, that there was a debate within the community about whether those tubes were for nukes in the first place? (She said that the editors had given her and reporting partner Michael Gordon only two weeks to come up with a big splash.) And I reminded her that the follow-up story, about dissenters' doubts, was just a short piece buried deep in the paper, and that the doubters didn't get quoted until around the sixth paragraph. She replied: "I think that story was underplayed. But (the doubt material) was still over 40 percent of the article."

My point was, the pro-WMD sources were not the only sources out there. I quoted some of the prewar stories that had been reported by the Knight Ridder chain's Washington bureau. This headline, which ran the same week as her aluminum tube story: "Lack of Hard Evidence of Iraqi Weapons Worries Top U.S. Officials." This headline, a week later: "Iraq Has Been Unable to Get Materials Needed for Nuclear Bombs." Two weeks after that: "CIA Report Reveals Analysts' Split Over Extent of Iraqi Nuclear Threat."

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/national-interest/80912-judith-miller-on-wmds-i-was-qaccurately-conveying-wrong-informationq

Former Sen. and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the only candidate for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination who supported the invasion of Iraq.

If then-Sen. Clinton's desire was simply to push Saddam into complying with the inspection process, she wouldn't have voted against the substitute Levin amendment (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html?_r=0), which would have also granted President Bush authority to use force, but only if Iraq defied subsequent UN demands regarding the inspections process.

Clinton made clear that the United States should invade Iraq anyway.

Indeed, she asserted that even though Saddam was in full compliance with the UN Security Council, he nevertheless needed to resign as president, leave the country, and allow U.S. troops to occupy the country.

The president gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war, Clinton said in a statement (http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=235695&&), and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly.

When Saddam refused to resign and the Bush administration launched the invasion, Clinton went on record (https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/104/text) calling for unequivocal support for Bush's firm leadership and decisive action as part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism. She insisted that Iraq was somehow still in material breach of the relevant United Nations resolutions and, despite the fact that weapons inspectors had produced evidence to the contrary, claimed the invasion was necessary to neutralize Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Democrats controlled the Senate at the time of the war authorization.

As late as February 2007, Clinton herself refused to admit that her vote for the war resolution was a mistake.

The 2016 Democratic presidential campaign is coming down to a race between Hillary Clinton, who supported the Bush Doctrine and its call for invading countries that are no threat to us regardless of the consequences, and Bernie Sanders, who supported the broad consensus of Middle East scholars and others familiar with the region who recognized that such an invasion would be disastrous.




https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/30/hillary-clintons-iraq-war-albatross/ (https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/30/hillary-clintons-iraq-war-albatross/)

[This story appeared originally at http://fpif.org/five-lamest-excuses-hillary-clintons-vote-invade-iraq/ (http://fpif.org/five-lamest-excuses-hillary-clintons-vote-invade-iraq/) ]

Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco.

your source is something called "Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco?"  so what?

why do you think repeating an easily debunked lie over and over somehow overrides the truth, you fucking asshole?  I have proven BY THE VERY WORDS OF THE RESOLUTION, THAT IT DID NOT AUTHORIZE ANY WAR ON IRAQ, WHO WAS NOT CONNECTED TO 9/11, AS BUSH AND CHENEY AND RICE ALL ADMIT.  AND ANOTHER PART OF THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZED FORCE ONLY IF...IF...IF...IRAQ DID NOT ALLOW THE INSPECTORS BACK IN WITH COMPLETE ACCESS...WHICH HAPPENED A MONTH AFTER THE RESOLUTION PASSED, THUS MAKING THE RESOLUTION MOOT, WHICH IT WAS ALREADY SINCE IRAQ WAS NOT CONNECTED TO 9/11!!  why are you so fucking stupid and thick headed, boy?

I posted it slower for you this time, hooty...


Former Sen. and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the only candidate for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination who supported the invasion of Iraq.

If then-Sen. Clinton's desire was simply to push Saddam into complying with the inspection process, she wouldn't have voted against the substitute Levin amendment (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html?_r=0), which would have also granted President Bush authority to use force, but only if Iraq defied subsequent UN demands regarding the inspections process.

Clinton made clear that the United States should invade Iraq anyway.

Indeed, she asserted that even though Saddam was in full compliance with the UN Security Council, he nevertheless needed to resign as president, leave the country, and allow U.S. troops to occupy the country.

The president gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war, Clinton said in a statement (http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=235695&&), and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly.

When Saddam refused to resign and the Bush administration launched the invasion, Clinton went on record (https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/104/text) calling for unequivocal support for Bush's firm leadership and decisive action as part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism. She insisted that Iraq was somehow still in material breach of the relevant United Nations resolutions and, despite the fact that weapons inspectors had produced evidence to the contrary, claimed the invasion was necessary to neutralize Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Democrats controlled the Senate at the time of the war authorization.

As late as February 2007, Clinton herself refused to admit that her vote for the war resolution was a mistake.

The 2016 Democratic presidential campaign is coming down to a race between Hillary Clinton, who supported the Bush Doctrine and its call for invading countries that are no threat to us regardless of the consequences, and Bernie Sanders, who supported the broad consensus of Middle East scholars and others familiar with the region who recognized that such an invasion would be disastrous.




https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/30/hillary-clintons-iraq-war-albatross/ (https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/30/hillary-clintons-iraq-war-albatross/)

you need to get somebody to read it to you, boy.  you don't understand what it says.  idiot bitch.  first off, the Resolution authorized force only if Iraq did not allow inspectors back in.  have somebody read it to you.  the Levin amendment was not necessary.  and like I showed so many times, the Iraq resolution did not apply to Iraq anyway, because it specifically said it was connected to those who attacked us on 9/11, and bush and rice and cheney all admitted Iraq had no connections to 9/11.  duh.  and the resolution she did vote for backing our troops already on the ground after bush invaded on lies?  HELL, YEAH.  EVERYBODY SHOULD BACK THE TROOPS ONCE THEY ARE ON THE GROUND AND THE OUTCOME IS IN DOUBT...IT IS TIME THEN TO CLOSE RANKS SO THAT OUR TROOPS IN COMBAT CAN GET THEIR JOBS DONE KNOWING THEY HAVE SUPPORT...THAT RESOLUTION SHE SIGNED WHICH YOU SEEM TO THINK MEANT SHE BACKED THE LYING INVASION WAS SENT TO THE ARMED FORCES COMMITTEE IN APRIL OF 2003, WHEN THE INVASION HAD BEGUN AND OUR SOLDIERS WERE ALREADY IN INVASION MODE, LYING IDIOT. 

Hillary never voted for the war in Iraq.  never.  not once.  period.  bitch. 

the Resolution authorized force only if Iraq did not allow inspectors back in.

Yup. And the loaded gun on the night stand is to only be used by the kids in case of an emergency too.

Get real short round. Anyone with a brain knew GW had a woody for Saddam. Only the foolish gave him a tool to act on it. I remember the day they approved that resolution. I was pissed cause I knew when he was going to LBJ us.

there were no wmds.....not ever

wtf does that mean?

And the Japanese never attacked  Pearl Harbor and Nazi Germany didn't bomb England or try to take over all of Europe did they casshole!

yeah, lying local, there was an unprovoked attack on our ships in international waters by the north Vietnamese.  was it trumped up and used as an excuse to get political and popular support for a huge escalation of the war started by Ike in 1956?  hell, yes.  but it did happen, and the support for the huge escalation was favored more by republicans than democrats in congress!!  and LISTEN, LIAR...the whole reason Hillary and Kerry and others voted for the resolution was to force Iraq to live up to the cease fire and TAKE AWAY ANY BUSH EXCUSE TO INVADE IRAQ, YOU IDIOT. AND IT WORKED!!!  A MONTH LATER BLIX WAS ALLOWED BACK IN WITH COMPLETE ACCESS AND BEGAN PROVING THERE WAS NO THREAT FROM IRAQ FROM ANY IMAGINARY WMDS...IT SHOULD HAVE WORKED, BUT BUSH WOULD NOT TAKE NO WMDS FOR AN ANSWER, ASSHOLE, AND INVADED ANYWAY ON LIES THEY DID EXIST.... goddamn.  how do you know so little about this and yet are so fucking willing to show your ignorance?

That was the one you dodged right hoboyscott! Did you go to Canada or Prison hoboy?

Truman was the first to support the Vietnam war short round.

Love all these stories and justifications, but the FACTS have been clear for over 13 years now.  The Bush administration lied to us and started, lost and left America with 2 wars.  We were all there and saw everything that occurred and it was clearly established what the Bush administration did.  Jim's attempt at rewriting history will have to wait until everyone is dead.
As for Hillary voting for the war, so the hell what?  She later stated that she had made a mistake in doing so.  So how does her vote somehow make a lie not a lie?

I posted it EVEN slower for you this time, hooty...


Former Sen. and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the only candidate for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination who supported the invasion of Iraq.

If then-Sen. Clinton's desire was simply to push Saddam into complying with the inspection process, she wouldn't have voted against the substitute Levin amendment (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html?_r=0), which would have also granted President Bush authority to use force, but only if Iraq defied subsequent UN demands regarding the inspections process.

Clinton made clear that the United States should invade Iraq anyway.

Indeed, she asserted that even though Saddam was in full compliance with the UN Security Council, he nevertheless needed to resign as president, leave the country, and allow U.S. troops to occupy the country.

The president gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war, Clinton said in a statement (http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=235695&&), and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly.

When Saddam refused to resign and the Bush administration launched the invasion, Clinton went on record (https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/104/text) calling for unequivocal support for Bush's firm leadership and decisive action as part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism. She insisted that Iraq was somehow still in material breach of the relevant United Nations resolutions and, despite the fact that weapons inspectors had produced evidence to the contrary, claimed the invasion was necessary to neutralize Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Democrats controlled the Senate at the time of the war authorization.

As late as February 2007, Clinton herself refused to admit that her vote for the war resolution was a mistake.

The 2016 Democratic presidential campaign is coming down to a race between Hillary Clinton, who supported the Bush Doctrine and its call for invading countries that are no threat to us regardless of the consequences, and Bernie Sanders, who supported the broad consensus of Middle East scholars and others familiar with the region who recognized that such an invasion would be disastrous.




https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/30/hillary-clintons-iraq-war-albatross/ (https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/30/hillary-clintons-iraq-war-albatross/)

Former Sen. and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the only candidate for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination who supported the invasion of Iraq.

If then-Sen. Clinton's desire was simply to push Saddam into complying with the inspection process, she wouldn't have voted against the substitute Levin amendment (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html?_r=0), which would have also granted President Bush authority to use force, but only if Iraq defied subsequent UN demands regarding the inspections process.

Clinton made clear that the United States should invade Iraq anyway.




https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/30/hillary-clintons-iraq-war-albatross/ (https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/30/hillary-clintons-iraq-war-albatross/)

your Levin amendment link did not work for me.  I have already proven Hillary never voted for the Iraq war.  period. because the resolution authorizing force did not even pertain to Iraq, and once the inspectors back in, it was moot anyway!!  how can you keep arguing about that dead horse, asshole?  and yeah, WHEN OUR TROOPS HAD ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED TO THE INVASION, WERE IN HARM'S WAY, WERE IN COMBAT, SHE SIGNED A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THEM...GOOD!!  EVERYBODY SHOULD SHUT UP AND CLOSE RANKS WHEN THE OUTCOME IS UNCERTAIN, OUR TROOPS HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, EVEN IF IT IS IN A LYING CAUSE.  there will be time to point out the lies and call for our troops to come home later after the fog of war has lifted and we have time to access the situation. 

horseshit duddy is a fucking liar, but we knew that already.

"Hillary Clinton voted to authorize George W. Bush to go to war in Iraq. As a result of that war, tens of thousands of Americans and Iraqis died needlessly, trillions of dollars were added to the debt, and the Middle East was destabilized in a way that led to the rise of ISIS, the Syrian Civil War, and the European refugee crisis now threatening to unravel the European Union...."

More at

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/hillarys-pro-iraq-war-vot_b_9112232.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/01/war-opponents-dispute-cli_n_84485.html


War opponents say Sen. Hillary Clinton is misleading in her explanation about why she voted in 2003 against a bill that would have stalled America's invasion of Iraq.

...................................................


Clinton: Still Falsifying on Iraq War Vote

http://www.accuracy.org/release/clinton-still-falsifying-on-iraq-war-vote/

.............................................................................


Key Reasons to Vote against Hillary Clinton: War and Levin Amendment (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/2/28/465602/-)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/02/28/465602/-Key-Reasons-to-Vote-against-Hillary-Clinton-War-and-Levin-Amendment

clinton will be our next president

bush lied about wmds

Clinton will not be prez.  Felons are not qualified.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/01/war-opponents-dispute-cli_n_84485.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/01/war-opponents-dispute-cli_n_84485.html)


War opponents say Sen. Hillary Clinton is misleading in her explanation about why she voted in 2003 against a bill that would have stalled America's invasion of Iraq.

...................................................


Clinton: Still Falsifying on Iraq War Vote

http://www.accuracy.org/release/clinton-still-falsifying-on-iraq-war-vote/ (http://www.accuracy.org/release/clinton-still-falsifying-on-iraq-war-vote/)

.............................................................................


Key Reasons to Vote against Hillary Clinton: War and Levin Amendment (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/2/28/465602/-)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/02/28/465602/-Key-Reasons-to-Vote-against-Hillary-Clinton-War-and-Levin-Amendment (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/02/28/465602/-Key-Reasons-to-Vote-against-Hillary-Clinton-War-and-Levin-Amendment)

Sweetlips,

It really doesn't matter what is said.  She voted for it.  She later stated that it was a mistake.  And the FACT remains that the Bush administration lied in order to get the backing of congress to start, lose and leave America with ISIS and the mess in Iraq.  The TrEA$on party is still trying to revise history.  You need to wait for everyone who was there to die before doing that Sweetlips.

let me ask you the obvious, dummy.  how can there be any evidence of wmds, even if some chick at the NY Times said so
 
Before I answer that, allow me to ask you the more obvious,  Did you even listen to the "Entire" video?  Because I'm not going to respond to you if your just nitpicking at the topic line. 

And I would suggest to everyone else to no longer respond to you nimrods when you haven't got a clue what the actual argument is.
 

unlike you, I wrote down exactly what the argument was, and did not lazily just present a damn video.  if you can read, you can look at how the resolution clearly does not call for any action against Iraq.  there is a link to the resolution as recorded in the archives if you believe it was misquoted.  it only gave the president the authority to enforce a previous law passed by congress to use force against any entity that attacked us on 9/11.  that specifically leaves Iraq out!!  I provided sources that all show bush and cheney and rice, the 3 most powerful Iraq liars, clearly admitting Iraq was never tied to 9/11.  never.  and, of course, another section of the resolution Clinton voted for was also quoted that authorized force if Iraq did NOT allow the inspectors back in as part of the Cease Fire with the UN, showed how a month after the resolution, saddam did comply with the UN Cease Fire agreement and allowed the inspectors back in with complete access.  the resolution, which never did give any authority to attack Iraq in the first place, was not MOOT as well!!  Clinton never voted for the lying invasion of Iraq.  period. 

typical right wing

if we disagree with you it's a lie

here's a thought show a picture of even one

not another photoshop one with authentication

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm)

Quote:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

[[Page 116 STAT. 1501]]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
    (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
    Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
    and encourages him in those efforts; and
    (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
    Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
    evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
    with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. (allow inspectors back in)


There were no existing UN resolutions authorizing force. The US tried to get a new one. In its original
drafts the US sought permission to attack on its own and it was REJECTED. The US only got the UNSC to
demand WMD inspectors be allowed back into Iraq or there were would be dire consequences. The UNSC never
actually authorized force. The UN refused to end the Cease Fire. 


(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
    with the United States and other countries continuing to take
    the necessary actions against international terrorist and
    terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
    or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
    terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.


The Iraq/911 connection was always untrue.  Bush and Rice both admitted they never believed it.   

About 727,000 results (0.92 seconds)
Bush: No Link Between Iraq, Sept. 11 Attacks | Fox News
www.foxnews.com/.../bush-no-link-between-iraq-sept (http://www.foxnews.com/.../bush-no-link-between-iraq-sept)...
Fox News Channel
Sep 17, 2003 - President Bush says administration has no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved ... Rice, asked about the same poll numbers, said, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9-

 
You still have not said if you listened to this reporter in the video.  Why is that?
I am presenting a Live witness who was there, not just some words that someone wrote down that can possibly be misinterpreted or copied wrong.

it is recorded in the link I also gave IN THE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES, BOZO.  what video are you talking about?  how does that compare to the actual document that proves nobody voted for the war in Iraq?  that was bush's decision.  period.  and of course he lied when he said there was "no doubt" Iraq had wmds.  they did not have wmds.  how can there be anything but doubt?  and blix had not found any traces, obviously, of any wmds FOR 3 DAMN MONTHS BEFORE BUSH SAID THERE WAS NO DOUBT!!!  you can't even accept that as proof?  wow.....

powell got the hell outa there when bush double crossed him on that wmd fiction

it'll be interesting to see if his committment to duty will ever allow

him to tell the truth

But I did Jim.  If you bothered reading you would have seen that I managed to make it through about 3/4 of the video.  And no Jim, she was not an actual live witness to the event.  She was merely a reporter who was then writing what she was given by the administration and is now claiming that the FACTs that came to lightboth during and after the invasion of Iraq are false.  Everything she stated was something she did not witness, but wrote down (years later) after she had re-defined the events.

what video are you talking about? 
 
Are you a dummy?   Its the first post in this topic.




how does that compare to the actual document
 
How does and a non-affidavit document compare to a LIVE witness who was actually involved?
 

you really are a caution

the best witnesses are those who are expertly coached

everybody knows that

Except she was NOT a live witness who was involved.  She was a reporter who was fed false information by the Bush administration. 

Faced with the truth liberals desperately cling to the lie!

Pity them for they dwell in an world of imagination!

jim says she was a witness

he wouldn't lie.................would he?

Jim wouldn't, but you would.

Jim did and you did.  Cas didn't.

I already debunked what Judith Miller said on page 2 of this thread, but here it is again.  but that is not the crux of my proof that bush lied.  if all he did was repeat what the CIA and others said about wmds, without mentioning all the doubts that were included in the CIA data reports, too, then he would still be a liar when he claimed there is "no doubt" about wmds when he gave his reason for invading Iraq on lies in his speech to the country on March, 17, 2003, three months after Blix had been allowed back into Iraq.  but there was also the fact BLIX HAD BEEN ALLOWED BACK INTO IRAQ THE LAST 3 MONTHS AND FOUND NO TRACES OF THESE WMDS BUSH MENTIONED.  that is when bush lied, for sure, and with "no doubt." no person can claim a country "without a doubt" has vast caches of wmds, weaponized and ready to go, with active means of production, after a team of expert weapons investigators with complete access and the best tools available to detect such evidence, FOUND NO TRACES AFTER 3 SOLID MONTHS OF INVESTIGATION....THAT WAS HIS LIE, DESPITE MILLER'S TOTAL INCOMPETENCE AS A JOURNALIST.

So I was feeling a tad kind-hearted when I interviewed her last week on stage at the Free Library of Philadelphia. Still, I had a job to do. Those prewar stories, particularly the front-pager about how Saddam was (supposedly) buying aluminum tubes for the purpose of building nukes, were black marks on the news business. Anyone who believes the canard about "the liberal media" should read those stories - and, at first, Miller defended them in every respect. When the war was new, in 2003, she told American Journalism Review, "This (criticism) will blow over because my reporting was accurate."

But her defense is different now - more nuanced, shall we say. She told me that, as the national security reporter back in '02 and '03, she was "accurately conveying wrong information."

In other words, she said that she was wrong because her sources were wrong. The lesson, she said, is that "when you think you know the whole story, you probably don't. You know part of it, a first draft...When you go back and back and back, you see the nuances, the facts that contradict what you reported."

OK. I get it that journalism is not an exact science, especially when you're covering terrorism issues and your sources are working in the shadows with shadowy inexact evidence. Miller told me, "I was trying to tell Americans what kind of information the president, the government, was getting about WMDs. That was my job...Some of (my work) was right, some of it was wrong."

The problem, at least in retrospect, was that Miller gave insufficient attention to the dissenting sources who had doubts about WMDs. Which suggests that she relied too heavily on the insiders who were wired Bush neocon war team. (The Times felt that way, after the fact.)

Anyway. While talking to me, here's how she described that so-called aluminum-tubes-for-nukes scoop, in September '02: "We wrote that story and it got a lot of play, including from the administration. Then I began to hear that there was a problem - that there was some debate within the (intelligence) community about these tubes....Some rumors that there was some debate about some aspects of the intelligence.... So five days later I went back and did another story saying there's a big debate about these tubes inside the intelligence community."

Which still prompts the question: Why didn't she learn before writing the scoop, that there was a debate within the community about whether those tubes were for nukes in the first place? (She said that the editors had given her and reporting partner Michael Gordon only two weeks to come up with a big splash.) And I reminded her that the follow-up story, about dissenters' doubts, was just a short piece buried deep in the paper, and that the doubters didn't get quoted until around the sixth paragraph. She replied: "I think that story was underplayed. But (the doubt material) was still over 40 percent of the article."

My point was, the pro-WMD sources were not the only sources out there. I quoted some of the prewar stories that had been reported by the Knight Ridder chain's Washington bureau. This headline, which ran the same week as her aluminum tube story: "Lack of Hard Evidence of Iraqi Weapons Worries Top U.S. Officials." This headline, a week later: "Iraq Has Been Unable to Get Materials Needed for Nuclear Bombs." Two weeks after that: "CIA Report Reveals Analysts' Split Over Extent of Iraqi Nuclear Threat."

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/national-interest/80912-judith-miller-on-wmds-i-was-qaccurately-conveying-wrong-informationq (http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/national-interest/80912-judith-miller-on-wmds-i-was-qaccurately-conveying-wrong-informationq)

No, you didn't.

Yes he did.

No, he didn't!

Why are all the duplicitous bastards on the left ignoring the truth in my link? Perhaps they realize  they cannot twist that truth!

The left was calling for what with Iraq before Bush was even elected, Sandy Berger even stated how many times Saddam used WMDs again before Bush was elected, then you idiots might have to explain what killed the Kurds and how maybe that shouldn't be considered a WMD.

And yet the FACT remains, Komerad Upyrz, there were NO WMDs, Bush and his administration lied to America.  Started, lost and left America with two wars and created ISIS.  You TrEA$on party @ssholes have a lot to answer for Komerad Upyrz.  But until everyone who was there is dead we are not going to allow you to revise history.(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

Gw proves he doesn't know what a lie is!

The fact is boo job is that the DEMS were beating the war drums before Bush was elected and before 9/11 if you read my link you would know that or are you saying that all those democrats that called for Saddams removal were lying?

But how exactly do you "remove" a dictator with one of the largest armies in the Middle East! So it safe to conclude that they we're calling for war, a war they then voted for, or did you miss that part with your zealous tunnel vision.  Everything in that link is true, all are public statements made by Democrats most made before Bush was elected so try and spin it but you will only get Dizzy!

why shouldn't any sane person be for saddam's removal, as long as the UN was behind it, it was for real reasons and we were not going to be occupiers?  he was a brutal dictator.  his sons were even worse.  was he worse than the Iranians? no.  was he worse than the north Koreans?  no.  was he worse than the Saudis, no.  worse than Syria, no.  worse than Pakistan, no. and by worse, I mean more of a threat to this country or its neighbors, more of a funder of international terrorism, more brutal to his own people.  no.  not sure why bush chose him.  he clearly said before the invasion no one believed Iraq was involved in 9/11.  there was never any real evidence he still had wmds, especially since 1998, all the inspectors were not allowed.  in fact, it was the not allowing of inspections that made it acceptable to want to depose him.  HE WAS NOT LIVING UP THE CEASE FIRE HE SIGNED WITH THE UN, AND HE NEEDED TO EITHER COMPLY, OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES. but he did comply, in November of 2002.  and then, 3 months later, and after blix clearly had found no traces of wmds or any active program to make any, BUSH INVADED ANYWAY CLAIMING THERE WAS NO DOUBT IRAQ DID POSSESS THESE WMDS BLIX COULD FIND NO TRACES OF!!!  HE LIED, SOLDIERS DIED.  PERIOD.   

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers.

For a lot of people, especially those inside the Washington Beltway who are curious about the internecine goings on that accompany the formulation of policy in administrations of both parties, The Washington Post's Bob Woodward is often the authoritative last word.

His latest bit of journalism isn't likely to win him any more friends on the left, as he's just knocked down a revered piece of conventional wisdom that will force a reassessment of George W. Bush's presidency. For according to Woodward, there's no evidence the 43rd president of the United States "lied" the nation into war.

According to Woodward, Bush himself was skeptical about the presence of weapons of mass destruction and urged caution on then-CIA Director George Tenet lest he stretch the case that there were.

Too many people have too much invested in the idea that Bush lied to allow the debate to start up again on the chance that they were wrong. It won't change what happened if those people were in fact wrong, any more than it will change any of the outcomes; what it will do is generate some confusion about who wears the white hats and who wears the black ones, which is not what the progressive Democrats – who are still reeling from President Barack Obama's foreign policy failures – need right now. After all, if Bush didn't lie, how can it be his fault that the Islamic State group continues to gain ground in Iraq now that Obama has pulled almost all the troops out of there?

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/05/26/bob-woodward-bush-didnt-lie-to-start-iraq-war

no legislator voted for the Iraq War, not even the republican majority in Congress.  more democrats voted against the Resolution than voted for it, but that Resolution never authorized force against Iraq, much less an all out invasion and occupation!! why do teabaggers today try to claim a minority of democrats somehow forced Bush to invade Iraq?  if you believe the lying invasion was justified or worth it, why not give bush all the credit, since he is the one who decided to do it, based on lies?  what is your motive for lying about bush not being the Decider and for lying about how the Iraq Resolution was even connected to the Iraq invasion?

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

Public Law 107–243 107th Congress

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/pdf/PLAW-107publ243.pdf


White House officials insisted that they still support repealing the 2002 AUMF, even as they are currently presenting it as legal justification to begin another military operation in Iraq and Syria.

Here, there is an issue of congressional intent. Passed by Congress in the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, this authorization was clearly directed at the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

https://newrepublic.com/article/119462/obama-has-weak-legal-justification-bombing-iraq-and-syria

Here in the words plainly written in the Iraq Resolution on record, is complete proof it never authorized any force to be used against Iraq.  Never.  From Day One.  It never applied to Iraq at all.  So, therefore, no person in Congress ever voted for the Iraq invasion. 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm)

Quote:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

[[Page 116 STAT. 1501]]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
    (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
    Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
    and encourages him in those efforts; and
    (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
    Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
    evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
    with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

There were no existing UN resolutions authorizing force. The US tried to get a new one. In its original
drafts the US sought permission to attack on its own and it was REJECTED. The US only got the UNSC to
demand WMD inspectors be allowed back into Iraq or there were would be dire consequences. The UNSC never
actually authorized force.

Quote:

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

    (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
    other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
    protect the national security of the United States against the
    continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
    enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
    resolutions regarding Iraq; and


Here Bush simply lied. The UN had acted. Inspectors were back in Iraq... and they were finding evidence that Saddam's WMDs had been destroyed back in 1991. But Bush invaded anyway because he said there was "no doubt" Iraq possessed wmds despite Blix finding no traces.

Quote:
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
    with the United States and other countries continuing to take
    the necessary actions against international terrorist and
    terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
    or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
    terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

The Iraq/911 connection was always untrue.  Bush and Rice both admitted they never believed it. 

About 727,000 results (0.92 seconds)
Bush: No Link Between Iraq, Sept. 11 Attacks | Fox News
www.foxnews.com/.../bush-no-link-between-iraq-sept (http://www.foxnews.com/.../bush-no-link-between-iraq-sept)...
Fox News Channel
Sep 17, 2003 - President Bush says administration has no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved ... Rice, asked about the same poll numbers, said, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9-11.
Bush: No Saddam Links To 9/11 - CBS News
www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-no-saddam-links-to-9-11/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-no-saddam-links-to-9-11/)

Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found - seattlepi.com
www.seattlepi.com/.../Bush-No-Iraq-link-to-9-1 (http://www.seattlepi.com/.../Bush-No-Iraq-link-to-9-1)...
Seattle Post‑Intelligencer
Sep 17, 2003 - Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found. President says Saddam had ties to al-Qaida, but apparently not to attacks .... White House National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, in an interview aired late Tuesday on ABC's "Nightline," ...
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_lin (https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_lin)...

At Last, It's Clear: No Tie Between Hussein and 9/11 - latimes
articles.latimes.com/2003/sep/21/opinion/le-bush21
Sep 21, 2003 - Re "No Proof Connects Iraq to 9/11, Bush Says," Sept. ... So, national security advisor Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald ... cornered into admitting they had no proof of any link between Hussein and 9/11 (Sept.

White House officials insisted that they still support repealing the 2002 AUMF, even as Obama is currently presenting it as legal justification to begin another military operation in Iraq and Syria.

Here, there is an issue of congressional intent. Passed by Congress in the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, this authorization was clearly directed at the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

https://newrepublic.com/article/119462/obama-has-weak-legal-justification-bombing-iraq-and-syria (https://newrepublic.com/article/119462/obama-has-weak-legal-justification-bombing-iraq-and-syria)

can you even read a little bit?  THE IRAQ RESOLUTION SAID IT ONLY GAVE AUTHORIZATION FOR FORCE AGAINST IRAQ AS ALREADY GIVEN TO THE PRESIDENT BY OTHER LEGAL MEANS, EXCEPT IT DID NOT SINCE IRAQ WAS NOT CONNECTED TO 9/11, BY BUSH AND RICE AND CHENEY'S OWN QUOTES, YOU MORON.  WHY DO YOU THINK I KEEP SHOVING THAT IN YOUR FACE, BOY?  READ THE ACTUAL WORDS, YOU FOOL, OR GET SOMEONE YOU TRUST TO READ IT FOR YOU...

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
    with the United States and other countries continuing to take
    the necessary actions against international terrorist and
    terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
    or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
    terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

The Iraq/911 connection was always untrue.  Bush and Rice both admitted they never believed it. 

About 727,000 results (0.92 seconds)
Bush: No Link Between Iraq, Sept. 11 Attacks | Fox News
www.foxnews.com/.../bush-no-link-between-iraq-sept (http://www.foxnews.com/.../bush-no-link-between-iraq-sept)...
Fox News Channel
Sep 17, 2003 - President Bush says administration has no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved ... Rice, asked about the same poll numbers, said, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9-11.
Bush: No Saddam Links To 9/11 - CBS News
www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-no-saddam-links-to-9-11/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-no-saddam-links-to-9-11/)

Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found - seattlepi.com
www.seattlepi.com/.../Bush-No-Iraq-link-to-9-1 (http://www.seattlepi.com/.../Bush-No-Iraq-link-to-9-1)...
Seattle Post‑Intelligencer
Sep 17, 2003 - Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found. President says Saddam had ties to al-Qaida, but apparently not to attacks .... White House National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, in an interview aired late Tuesday on ABC's "Nightline," ...
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_lin (https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_lin)...

At Last, It's Clear: No Tie Between Hussein and 9/11 - latimes
articles.latimes.com/2003/sep/21/opinion/le-bush21
Sep 21, 2003 - Re "No Proof Connects Iraq to 9/11, Bush Says," Sept. ... So, national security advisor Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald ... cornered into admitting they had no proof of any link between Hussein and 9/11 (Sept

The readers digest published  a List of Chemical weapons that Iran has admitted  to having tons of each kind Mustard Gas etc .

People seem to forget he Gasses the Kurds so he could see what the weapons did testing them on his own people !


BOB   RI    123

Scott after the invasion we would hope there would be less weapons of mass destruction !

What about all the Service personal who came down with Gulf war syndrome and are still suffering , they bombed the hell out of Iraq and all the weapons they could find !



BOB   RI    123

that came from the toxicity of our own armored piercing shells which use depleted uranium/plutonium, bob ri 123.  duh.  go through the pages, see where bush's own inspector said Iraq's storing and manufacturing capacity of wmds shut down after desert storm. by 1993 at the latest.  any toxic goo left undestroyed after 1993 would be totally unusable as effective wmds after at the most 5 years.  why do you insist on commenting whey you don't have a clue what is going on, bob ri 123?

White House officials insisted that they still support repealing the 2002 AUMF, even as Obama is currently presenting it as legal justification to begin another military operation in Iraq and Syria.

Here, there is an issue of congressional intent. Passed by Congress in the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, this authorization was clearly directed at the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

https://newrepublic.com/article/119462/obama-has-weak-legal-justification-bombing-iraq-and-syria


Obama is currently presenting the 2002 AUMF as legal justification to begin another military operation in Iraq and Syria.

so

it's ok for bush to invade iraq

but

not obama

what changed?

Here, there is an issue of congressional intent. Passed by Congress in the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, this authorization was clearly directed at the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

https://newrepublic.com/article/119462/obama-has-weak-legal-justification-bombing-iraq-and-syria (https://newrepublic.com/article/119462/obama-has-weak-legal-justification-bombing-iraq-and-syria)    <----   Link


Obama likes to go around Congress and the Constitution.

not if it specified those connected to 9/11, you full of shit moron.  or those tied to al Qaeda.  bush also admitted that prior to our invasion, there was no al Qaeda presence in Iraq. 

he has no choice with a republican congress

what gain? having our soldiers killed while occupying Iraq?  why do you consider that a gain? or was it the spending of 50 billion dollars a year maintaining that occupation?

FOR ALL YOU IGNORANT TURDS ON THE LEFT, WHAT KILLED THE KURDS AND IS THAT NOT PROOF OF WMDS?

ALSO THE INVASION OF KUWAIT WAS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WAR!

No local, what Bush did was start, lose and leave America with 2 wars and ISIS.  Heckuva job there Moronie.

 ISIS is a Gift from Obama.  Now go to your room and think of all the Lies you've been trying to push..

Good story line Jim....... except they formed up in 2003 from the Iraqi troops that had been disbanded and they were armed with all the weapons that Sweet George failed to confiscate when he disbanded the Iraqi army.  Now go to your corner and think of all the lies you tell Jim.

ISIS began in 2003.  After Bush invaded Iraq on lies about wdms. 

The ideological origin of ISIS

The group began more than two decades ago as a fervid fantasy in the mind of a Jordanian named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. A onetime street thug, he arrived in Afghanistan as a mujahideen wannabe in 1989, too late to fight the Soviet Union. He went back home to Jordan, and remained a fringe figure in the international violent “jihad” for much of the following decade. He returned to Afghanistan to set up a training camp for terrorists, and met Osama bin Laden in 1999, but chose not to join al-Qaeda.

The fall of the Taliban in 2001 forced Zarqawi to flee to Iraq. In reality, though, Zarqawi was a free agent, looking to create his own terror organization. Shortly after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, he set up the forerunner to today’s Islamic State: Jama’at al-Tawhid w’al-Jihad (the Party of Monotheism and Jihad), which was made up mostly of non-Iraqis.

Although Zarqawi’s rhetoric was similar to bin Laden’s, his targets were quite different. From the start, Zarqawi directed his malevolence at fellow Muslims, especially Iraq’s majority Shiite population. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda regarded the Shiites as heretics, but rarely targeted them for slaughter.

ISIS takes root in Iraq & Syria

By 2011, AQI was being run by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and had morphed from a largely foreign to a largely Iraqi operation. Baghdadi himself, as his name suggests, is local. The absence of foreigners made it easier for the Sons of Iraq and their kin to ignore previous resentments against the group. There was also another rebranding: AQI was now better known as the Islamic State of Iraq, or ISI.

Baghdadi took Zarqawi’s tactics and supercharged them. The Shiites were still his main targets, but now he sent suicide bombers to attack police and military offices, checkpoints, and recruiting stations. (Civilian targets remained fair game.) ISI’s ranks were swelled by former Sons of Iraq, many of whom had previously been commanders and soldiers in Saddam’s military. This gave Baghdadi’s fighters the air of an army, rather than a rag-tag militant outfit.

With thousands of armed men now at his disposal, Baghdadi opened a second front against the Shiites—in Syria, where there was a largely secular uprising against President Bashar al-Assad

What mattered to Baghdadi and his propagandists was that Assad and many of his senior military commanders were Alawites, members of a Shiite sub-sect

Battle-hardened from Iraq, ISI was a much more potent fighting force than most of the secular groups, and fought Assad’s forces to a standstill in many areas

Soon, Baghdadi renamed his group the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), reflecting his greater ambitions.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-ISIS-form-When-and-where-did-

Did Bush Lie About Iraq?




(http://republicanssucks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/iraq-war-cost-2.jpg)


that jim would take the position that George W. Bush was right about WMD's shows the length of the delusional right wing to re-write history. 

jim is a traitor to the United States.

Does anyone on the left have the honesty or the balls to answer this question:  "what killed the Kurds"?

(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/https://mickymouseamerica.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/bush.jpg?w=780)

Judith Miller?


Judith Miller was a dupe, used by Dickless Cheney to spread his lies.


Judith Miller tries, and ultimately fails, to defend her flawed Iraq Reporting (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwim5-_i3rTLAhXhvIMKHUTlDPwQFgg2MAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fopinions%2Fa-reporters-defense-of-her-flawed-reporting%2F2015%2F04%2F09%2F5bf93f14-de15-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.html&usg=AFQjCNEx7rynQkJXLFEuz0-3klUKykRt9A&sig2=ybU1OsgyHw1QSSSTf-cYdA&bvm=bv.116573086,d.amc)



... her involvement in the high-profile federal case against a Bush administration aide, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, for his criminal offenses during an investigation into the leaking of the name of CIA employee Valerie Plame.

You know Scooter - the guy convicted for outing a CIA operative, treason.



...Miller explains her December 2001 story headlined “An Iraqi Defector Tells of Work on at Least 20 Hidden Weapons Sites.” Iraqi defector Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/20/international/middleeast/20DEFE.html?pagewanted=1) Miller, had “personally visited at least 20 different sites that he believed to have been associated with Iraq’s chemical or biological weapons programs.”

Uh, no. After the fall of Baghdad, U.S. officials brought Haideri to these sites and “failed to find evidence of their use for weapons programs,” the Times wrote (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html) in a much-discussed May 2004 editor’s note regretting its WMD reporting.

upyourwazoo, we all admit saddam was a ruthless dictator.  and he used chemical weapons on the kurds and Iranian soldiers prior to 1991.  what does that have to do with an invasion in 2003?

It means that he had by any stretch of the imagination WMDs and used them. WMDs have always included chemical radiological and biological weapons. Just yesterday drones took out a factory in Iraq that was producing artillery shells filled with mustard gas and the guy in charge formerly worked for Saddam in the same capacity!

nobody is denying he used them before 1991.  I must play the bullshit card on your bizarre story about finding a plant in Iraq producing them now.  unless it was real mustard, and they also produced mayonnaise filled weapons. 

If you were not spending so much time on huff post you might have seen tonight's news on all networks they all showed the film of the drone taking out the factory and the capture of the guy running it, so the only mayonnaise is what's left on your chin after your 'significant other male type" finishes! I know that you hate it when your ballon get busted or your battleship is sunk but that's life!

nope. dumbass.  never happened.  I just googled it and the last hit about any mustard gas in Iraq was from 2008, when they found some discarded warheads rotting in the desert or something.   not that anything that happens now in Iraq is in anyway related to bush lying about wmds so he could get enough popular support to invade Iraq on those lies in 2003.  and why does just reading the word "mayonnaise" make you start having such graphic gay fantasies and/or flashbacks, gay boy?

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers.

For a lot of people, especially those inside the Washington Beltway who are curious about the internecine goings on that accompany the formulation of policy in administrations of both parties, The Washington Post's Bob Woodward is often the authoritative last word.

His latest bit of journalism isn't likely to win him any more friends on the left, as he's just knocked down a revered piece of conventional wisdom that will force a reassessment of George W. Bush's presidency. For according to Woodward, there's no evidence the 43rd president of the United States "lied" the nation into war.



http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/05/26/bob-woodward-bush-didnt-lie-to-start-iraq-war (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/05/26/bob-woodward-bush-didnt-lie-to-start-iraq-war)

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/02/17/wmds-found-iraqcia-bought-400-rockets-filled-sarin-gas/

there were no wmds and bush knew it

 
What are you calling WMDs?  Because Nerve Gas happens to be a WMD.

no democrat voted for the Iraq War, dumbass.  Nobody did.  and woodward is a senile old clown still chasing his next 15 minutes of fame. and or course everybody was lied to about wmds, idiot.  THERE WEREN'T ANY, STUPID.  and lied to about ties to al Qaeda and ties to 9/11/  bush has admitted all 3 of those were lies.  why can't you wimps?

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised

George  Bush, US President 17 March, 2003, Speech to the Nation

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002



If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons of mass destruction there.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003

"25,000 liters of anthrax ... 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent ... upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents ... several mobile biological weapons labs ... thousands of Iraqi security personnel ... at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors."

George Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

...we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

Condoleezza Rice
CNN Interview with Wolf Blitzer
September 8, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFOOQ8e5J3A


Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003



They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

It was a surprise to me then Eit remains a surprise to me now Ethat we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview

But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.

--George W. Bush, on two mobile bio-labs found that were later found NOT to be mobile bio-labs.
Interview with TVP Poland
5/30/2003

You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons ...They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two...And we'll find more weapons as time goes on And we'll find more weapons as time goes on

--George W. Bush, on two mobile bio-labs that were found that were later found NOT to be mobile bio-labs.
Press Briefing
5/30/2003

The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."
   
The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years.

Duelfer's report, delivered yesterday to two congressional committees, represents the government's most definitive accounting of Hussein's weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush administration presented as a central reason for the war. While previous reports have drawn similar conclusions, Duelfer's assessment went beyond them in depth, detail and level of certainty.

"We were almost all wrong" on Iraq, Duelfer told a Senate panel yesterday.

President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials asserted before the U.S. invasion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, had chemical and biological weapons and maintained links to al Qaeda affiliates to whom it might give such weapons to use against the United States.

But after extensive interviews with Hussein and his key lieutenants, Duelfer concluded that Hussein was not motivated by a desire to strike the United States with banned weapons, but wanted them to enhance his image in the Middle East and to deter Iran, against which Iraq had fought a devastating eight-year war. Hussein believed that "WMD helped save the regime multiple times," the report said.

The team also found no evidence of stocks of the smallpox virus, which the administration had claimed it had.

Chemical Weapons

Duelfer's report said that no chemical weapons existed and that there is no evidence of attempts to make such weapons over the past 12 years. Iraq retained dual-use equipment that could be used for such an effort.

"The issue is that he has chemical weapons, and he's used them," Cheney told CNN in March 2002. The National Intelligence Estimate said that "although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents -- much of it added in the last year."

One of the reasons the intelligence community feared a chemical weapons arsenal was that U.N. inspectors said Iraq had not fully explained missing chemical agents during the 1990s. The report determined that unanswered questions were almost certainly the result of poor accounting.

Iraq's responses to U.N. inspectors regarding chemical weapons appear to have been truthful, and where incomplete, with differing recollections among former top officials, mostly the result of fading memories of when or how stockpiles were destroyed. Those were the identical reasons Iraq offered to U.N. inspectors before the war.

At the same time, the missile that U.S. military planners had most feared in the run-up to the invasion appears to have vanished. While Bush administration officials had asserted that Hussein had hidden a small arsenal of Scud missiles, Duelfer said interviews and documents suggest Iraq "did not retain such missiles after 1991."

"There was a risk -- a real risk -- that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks," Bush said. "In the world after September 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take."

Supporters rallied around the administration, which has suffered a string of setbacks recently with revelations that the CIA had warned the White House about the strength of Iraqi insurgents, and from former Iraq administrator L. Paul Bremer, who said this week that the United States should have put more troops in Iraq during the invasion.

Duelfer's report contradicted a number of specific claims administration officials made before the war.

It found, for example, that Iraq's "crash" program in 1991 to build a nuclear weapon before the Persian Gulf War was far from successful, and was nowhere near being months away from producing a weapon, as the administration asserted. Only micrograms of enriched uranium were produced and no weapon design was completed. The CIA and administration officials have said they were surprised by the advanced state of Iraq's pre-1991 nuclear program, which was discovered after the war, and therefore were more prone to overestimate Iraq's capability when solid proof was unavailable.

There also was no evidence that Iraq possessed or was developing a mobile biological weapons production system, an assertion Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and others made before the invasion. The two trailers that were found in early 2003 were "almost certainly designed and built . . . exclusively for the generation of hydrogen" gas.

Duelfer also found no information to support allegations that Iraq sought uranium from Africa or any other country after 1991, as Bush once asserted in a major speech before the invasion. The only two contacts with Niger that were discovered were an invitation to the president of Niger to visit Baghdad, and a visit to Baghdad by a Niger minister in 2001 seeking petroleum products for cash. There was one offer to Iraq of "yellowcake" uranium, and that was from a Ugandan businessman offering uranium from Congo. The deal was turned down, and the Ugandan was told that Baghdad was not interested because of the sanctions.

Nuclear Weapons

Despite the U.S. intelligence judgment that Iraq in 2002 had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program, Duelfer reported that after 1991, Baghdad's nuclear program had "progressively decayed." He added that the Iraq Survey Group investigators had found no evidence "to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."

There was an attempt to keep nuclear scientists together and two scientists were discovered to have saved documents and technology related to the uranium enrichment program, but they appeared to be the exception.

Although some steps were taken that could have helped restart the nuclear program, using oil-for-food money, Duelfer concluded that his team "uncovered no indication that Iraq had resumed fissile material or nuclear weapons research and development activities since 1991."

Biological Weapons

Duelfer's report is the first U.S. intelligence assessment to state flatly that Iraq had secretly destroyed its biological and chemical weapons stocks in the early 1990s. There was some effort to restart the program in the early 1990's but by 1995, though, and under U.N. pressure, it abandoned its efforts.

The document rules out the possibility that biological or chemical weapons might have been hidden, or perhaps smuggled into another country, and it finds no evidence of secret biological laboratories or ongoing research that could be firmly linked to a weapons program

no democrat voted for the Iraq War

Really?  Well guess how many Instigated for it.
   

For 5 years, from 1998 until 2003 Democrats hyped up the claim of WMD's before congress and before the American people..  They totally laid it out to the country how Saddam Hussein was not only a World Menace, but was an imminent threat to America.  And we totally believe every single word.   
So did George W Bush, the Senate,  the Congress, and the world.
   
Only cowards would try to lay this solely on the Right just because "times have changed" and they think they have sole benefit of the arm chair 20/20 hindsight..
Only cowards instigate fights then attempt stand in a dark corner with their hands in their pockets whistling an "I'm Innocent" tune.

---

"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 Bill 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 Bill 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" 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 Bill 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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters 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:
-- Democratic Senators 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 elicit 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 th! e 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 buildup 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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
 
"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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
 

so are nuclear devices

scott

that's not fair providing written proof of the bush duplicity

the right is gone off the deep end of sanity

they got their war in raq but still they ain't happy

the left will never promote a war to prove manhood

manhood is helping not killing

The left supported war in Iraq.

Case closed.

the left will never promote a war to prove manhood
 
Except I just posted that they did. Consider your little bubble broke...

Liberals are more than happy to stand by and watch innocents be slaughtered!

Dan I have posted those democratic quotes many times but the left has so much invested in that lie they cannot accept the truth!!

you teabaggers are goddamn liars.  you cannot even read the quotes of bush and his team of neocon chickenhawks and see just how much more they WERE CHEERLEADING THE WAR USING CHERRY PICKED DATA FROM THE CIA THAT EVEN THE CIA ADMITTED WAS RAW DATA AND NOT BASED ON ANY REAL EVIDENCE- HOW COULD IT BE?  THERE WERE NO WMDS THERE, AS BLIX AND DUELFUR, OUR INSPECTOR, BOTH CLEARLY STATED...ACCORDING TO LYING ASS JIM, IT WAS THE DEMOCRATS THAT FORCED BUSH TO INVADE!! the minority freaking democrats!!  the ones who voted, as a party collectively, against the resolution that only authorized force if blix was not allowed back in after a 4 year absence and then was moot when saddam did let blix back in a month later!! and besides the resolution only affected countries and individuals and groups with ties to 9/11, and bush and cheney and rice all said they never said or thought Iraq was tied to 9/11!!  why do you keep lying?  that list of quotes from democrats never ever one time called for a goddamn invasion, you lying pigs.  and it was before blix was allowed back in and proved there were no wmds, that all the rumors and shit the paid off Iraqi exiles like chalabi were telling us, that bush relied on, WAS TOTASL BULLSHIT....after our lying invasion, chalabi was named oil minister!!  that is how he got paid off to lie.  in bush's STOTU speech, chalabi sat right behind laura bush as an honored guest!  for lying to us and to give bush more bullshit to lie about to get support for his goddamn lying invasion.

compare those quotes from democrats mainly in 1998 through 2001 and how they differ in tone from what bush and his chickenshit posse of lying warmongers said in 2002 and 2003 both before and after the lying invasion, when and after they decided they needed to invade Iraq as soon as possible, for some damn reason....most of these statements come AFTER blix had been allowed back into Iraq and had found no traces of wmds after 3 months until bush ordered him out so he could invade before blix could take away his lying reason to invade.  the longer blix continued to find no traces, the more evident bush's lies about how dangerous Iraq was would be. 


Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised

George  Bush, US President 17 March, 2003, Speech to the Nation

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002



If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002


We know for a fact that there are weapons of mass destruction there.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003

"25,000 liters of anthrax ... 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent ... upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents ... several mobile biological weapons labs ... thousands of Iraqi security personnel ... at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors."

George Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003



...we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

Condoleezza Rice
CNN Interview with Wolf Blitzer
September 8, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003


Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003


One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003


We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFOOQ8e5J3A
 

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003

 

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

It was a surprise to me then Eit remains a surprise to me now Ethat we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview

But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.

--George W. Bush, on two mobile bio-labs found that were later found NOT to be mobile bio-labs.
Interview with TVP Poland
5/30/2003

You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons ...They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two...And we'll find more weapons as time goes on And we'll find more weapons as time goes on

--George W. Bush, on two mobile bio-labs that were found that were later found NOT to be mobile bio-labs.
Press Briefing
5/30/2003

Hillary   expressed pride (http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html) that her husband's administration changed underlying U.S.  policy toward Iraq from "containment" to "regime change".

She   insisted (http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html) that "It is clear...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."

Senator Clinton   insisted that Saddam (http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html) "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to  terrorists, including al-Qaeda members."

Indeed,  she asserted that the only way to avoid war would be for Saddam Hussein to abide  by President Bush's ultimatum to resign as president and leave the country.

Said Senator Clinton, "The president gave Saddam Hussein one last chance  to avoid war and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this  ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly."

  "Failure is not an option" in Iraq, she insisted. "We have  no option but to stay involved and committed." Indeed, long before President  Bush announced his "surge," Senator Clinton called for the United  States to send more troops.



Stephen   Zunes (http://%3ca/)   is a professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice   Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He serves as   Middle East editor for Foreign Policy   in Focus (http://www.fpif.org/).


http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=12052 (http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=12052)

don't remember Clinton ever invading and occupying Iraq and he was not in office when blix was allowed back in and proved Iraq had no wmds...liar.....when did that happen, jerkwater?  I do remember him, as part of our treaty obligations with NATO, helping depose Milosevic, a much more dangerous enemy than Saddam, to keep him from his ethnic cleansing program in Kosovo, without any American soldiers being sent into combat and being killed in the process.  Milosevic was captured and tried before the World Court for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity without one soldier being killed in combat.  Maybe that is the kind of action Hillary was talking about.  The kind where our soldiers are not occupiers, we work with our allies, and no soldiers are killed in combat. Saddam was a brutal dictator, after all.  and Qaddafi admitted helping kill 183 Americans in the Lockerbie attack, but right wingers seem to admire him, even after he promised to go door to door and kill all the civilians like rats.  And they condemn Hillary and Obama because this country lived up to its treaty obligations with the UN, who voted to extend a no fly zone in Libya, and NATO, which also voted to extend a no fly zone in Libya, and the freaking Arab League, who also voted to extend a no fly zone, to help stop the American killing dictator Qaddafi from carrying out his threat to exterminate his own citizens.  the UN did not vote to go along with bush's lying invasion, NATO did not and the freaking Arab League did not, either.  Not even close to how Clinton deposed Milosevic without one American combat death.  get it?

CLAIM: “We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein ... had either direction or control of 9/11.” – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 9/16/03
 

FACT: President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against “nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

FACT: Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 “I think it's not surprising that people make that connection” between Saddam and 9/11- with no evidence to back up his claim.

 Coming just days after the Obama administration released the OLC memos which justified the Bush administration's regime of detainee torture, a 200 page Senate Armed Services Committee report is producing a new wave of shocking revelations. As it turns out, intelligence and military officials were preparing the brutal interrogation program eight months before its approval by the Bush Justice Department. And in trying to sell the invasion of Iraq, the Bush torture team ordered the abuse of detainees to manufacture a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. But despite their failure to do so, President Bush and his water carriers continue to perpetuate that myth to this day.

As McClatchy reported, "the Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime." The effort to establish ties between Bin Laden and Saddam was ramped up in 2002 and early 2003 to provide "proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there," according to according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist:

    "There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder," he continued.

    "Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA...and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies"...

    A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under "pressure" to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.

For her part, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insisted a month ago that "No one was arguing that Saddam Hussein somehow had something to do with 9/11." Of course, Rice wasn't the only one in the Bush White House contending "there were ties going on between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime," as she insisted as late as September 2006. Echoing President Bush's farewell address in January, former press secretary Ari Fleischer made the Saddam - September 11 connection just the previous week.

Fleischer used a March appearance with Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball to display his gift for fiction regarding the Iraq war and 9/11:

    "After September 11th having been hit once how could we take a chance that Saddam might strike again? And that's the threat that has been removed and I think we are all safer with that threat removed."

But if Fleischer was butchering history to justify the calamity in Iraq, he was only following George W. Bush's lead.

An unapologetic President Bush made that clear during his final address to the American people on January 15, 2009. Just days before his departure, Bush seamlessly wove the invasion of Iraq into his revisionist history of the aftermath of September 11, 2001:

    "As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before 9/11. But I never did. Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our nation. I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe...

    ...And with strong allies at our side, we have taken the fight to the terrorists and those who support them. Afghanistan has gone from a nation where the Taliban harbored al Qaeda and stoned women in the streets to a young democracy that is fighting terror and encouraging girls to go to school. Iraq has gone from a brutal dictatorship and a sworn enemy of America to an Arab democracy at the heart of the Middle East and a friend of the United States."

Of course, Bush's subtlety in January was nowhere on display during his jaw-dropping December 15, 2008 interview with ABC's Martha Raddatz. The President wasn't merely content to ignore the bipartisan 9/11 Commission's conclusion that Al Qaeda and Iraq had no "operational relationship." Boasting that "there have been no attacks since I have been president, since 9/11," the President simply dismissed any criticism that it was only his 2003 invasion which brought Al Qaeda forces to Iraq:

    BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take -

    RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

    BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.

Of course, President Bush and Vice President Cheney throughout 2002 and 2003 warned of the mythical alliance between Saddam and Bin Laden. For example, on October 14, 2002, Bush announced that "We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade." On the eve of the war, the President told Americans that Iraq "has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda." And as hostilities commenced, Cheney on March 21, 2003 decried Iraq as the "geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

In June 2005, President Bush continued to nurture the false Iraq connection to 9/11 long after he grudgingly admitted on September 17, 2004 that "we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." Bush's intentional conflation of the two included the amazing June 18, 2005 statement that "we went to war [with Iraq] because we were attacked." By December 2008, Bush's linkage had morphed into the "risk we could not afford to take."

As it turns out, for George W. Bush the "risk we could not afford to take" was not averting war with Iraq, but the absence of a compelling sales pitch for it. And to be sure, Bush was in that regard quite successful. As an October 2003 PIPA survey showed, even after the invasion of Iraq, majorities of Americans continued to believe Bush administration claims about Saddam (Iraq role in 9/11, an alliance between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and Saddam's WMD) all long since proven false. (Unsurprisingly, viewers of Fox News were the most delusional.) And as late as July 2006, fully 50% of Americans still believed the discredited claim that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Hillary   expressed pride (http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html) that her husband's administration changed underlying U.S.  policy toward Iraq from "containment" to "regime change".   Public Law 105-235.

 "Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of any solution in Iraq.
Therefore, President Clinton's action today is the most appropriate
response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will rise up from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready
to help with arms to do so. Only then will the
trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be free of weapons of
mass destruction."


She   insisted (http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html) that "It is clear...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."

Senator Clinton   insisted that Saddam (http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html) "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to  terrorists, including al-Qaeda members."

Indeed,  she asserted that the only way to avoid war would be for Saddam Hussein to abide  by President Bush's ultimatum to resign as president and leave the country.

Said Senator Clinton, "The president gave Saddam Hussein one last chance  to avoid war and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this  ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly."

  "Failure is not an option" in Iraq, she insisted. "We have  no option but to stay involved and committed." Indeed, long before President  Bush announced his "surge," Senator Clinton called for the United  States to send more troops.



Stephen   Zunes (http://%3ca/)   is a professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice   Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He serves as   Middle East editor for Foreign Policy   in Focus (http://www.fpif.org/).


http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=12052 (http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=12052)

don't remember Clinton ever invading and occupying Iraq and he was not in office when blix was allowed back in and proved Iraq had no wmds...liar.....when did that happen, jerkwater?  I do remember him, as part of our treaty obligations with NATO, helping depose Milosevic, a much more dangerous enemy than Saddam, to keep him from his ethnic cleansing program in Kosovo, without any American soldiers being sent into combat and being killed in the process.  Milosevic was captured and tried before the World Court for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity without one soldier being killed in combat.  Maybe that is the kind of action Hillary was talking about.  The kind where our soldiers are not occupiers, we work with our allies, and no soldiers are killed in combat. Saddam was a brutal dictator, after all.  and Qaddafi admitted helping kill 183 Americans in the Lockerbie attack, but right wingers seem to admire him, even after he promised to go door to door and kill all the civilians like rats.  And they condemn Hillary and Obama because this country lived up to its treaty obligations with the UN, who voted to extend a no fly zone in Libya, and NATO, which also voted to extend a no fly zone in Libya, and the freaking Arab League, who also voted to extend a no fly zone, to help stop the American killing dictator Qaddafi from carrying out his threat to exterminate his own citizens.  the UN did not vote to go along with bush's lying invasion, NATO did not and the freaking Arab League did not, either.  Not even close to how Clinton deposed Milosevic without one American combat death.  get it?

Poor Scott doesn't know what a lie is!

Toilet paper boy seems to think that posting reams of bullshit will change the simple fact that all those quotes from Democrats prove without a doubt that the left is lying!

before blix was allowed back in and proved them all lies, you goddamn idiot.  what part of that do you not understand, dumbass?

Fool Blix had no evidence as Saddam didn't give him unfettered access as was required by the Cease Fire Treaty!

In his March 6, 2003, report to the U.N. Security Council, Hans Blix reported that the declared stocks of anthrax and VX remained unaccounted for. In the last chance given to Iraq by Resolution 1441, Iraq had failed to provide answers. As Blix reported again in May 2003, "little progress was made in the solution of outstanding issues....the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for and as such resulting in unresolved disarmament issues was not shortened by the inspections".

Why aren`t the conservatives demanding an investigation? I can`t think of a better way to clear the name of George W. We`ve had 8 thorough investigations concerning the 4 dead at Benghazi so why not 9,000 investigations to find out why 4,500 died looking for wmds?

Augie still misses Saddam!

Misses hearing about Saddam murdering millions!

Augie still hasn't realized Saddam's executioners are now running ISIS!

why would the Bush Administration deny the fact that WMDs were found in Iraq?

Government hides all sorts of things from us.

Why aren`t the conservatives demanding an investigation? I can`t think of a better way to clear the name of George W.



Been there, done that...


In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers.

For a lot of people, especially those inside the Washington Beltway who are curious about the internecine goings on that accompany the formulation of policy in administrations of both parties, The Washington Post's Bob Woodward is often the authoritative last word.

His latest bit of journalism isn't likely to win him any more friends on the left, as he's just knocked down a revered piece of conventional wisdom that will force a reassessment of George W. Bush's presidency. For according to Woodward, there's no evidence the 43rd president of the United States "lied" the nation into war.



http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/05/26/bob-woodward-bush-didnt-lie-to-start-iraq-war (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/05/26/bob-woodward-bush-didnt-lie-to-start-iraq-war)

Didn't Iraq pay Blix money to say there was no evidence... that is what is called a conflict of interest.

is it possible that the WMDs were made in the USA and Europe before Bush was President and he was protecting American interests?

how can jerkwater try to pretend that the CIA told the truth about Iraq having wmds, when there was no way there was any proof they had any?  in 2004, our troops were being shot at, in combat, due to bush's lies, and taking way more casualties as occupiers and nation builders as invaders when they ran thru Iraq like a hot knife thru butter.  I don't care what side of the political fence you areon, WHEN OUR SOLDIERS ARE UNDER FIRE, that is not the best time to try and sort out the truth of why bush lied them into combat, it is time to move on, until enough time passes that such an intensely important investigation can be carried out with anyone claiming it is just an attempt to not support our troops in harm's way. even a teabagger should know that is what bush counted on. he and the other chickenshit repubs could smear any outrage from democrats and independents and fair minded republicans at being lied into the war when it was obvious Iraq had no wmds by saying they were hurting the troops already in combat!! and what you are claiming is not true, many CIA operatives and analysts have come forward saying they were coerced and told to concentrate on finding niger uranium links and aluminum centrifuge links and to believe the self serving bullshit coming from Chalabi and other paid off Iraqi exiles with close ties to Iran.


(CNN) -- A retired CIA official has accused the Bush administration of ignoring intelligence indicating that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no active nuclear program before the United States-led coalition invaded it, CBS News said Sunday.

Tyler Drumheller, the former highest-ranking CIA officer in Europe, told "60 Minutes" that the administration "chose to ignore" good intelligence, the network said in a posting on its Web site.

Drumheller said that, before the U.S.-led attack on Iraq in 2003, the White House "ignored crucial information" from Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, that indicated Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

Drumheller said that, when then-CIA Director George Tenet told President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other high-ranking officials that Sabri was providing information, his comments were met with excitement that proved short-lived.

"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," Drumheller is quoted as saying. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "

Drumheller said the administration officials wanted no more information from Sabri because: "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."

CBS said the White House declined to respond to the charge and that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said Sabri was just one source and therefore not reliable.

But Drumheller said it was not unusual for the administration to rely on single-source stories when those stories confirmed what the White House wanted to hear.

He cited a report the CIA received in late 2001 that alleged Iraq had bought 500 tons of uranium-containing compounds from Africa.

"They certainly took information that came from single sources on the yellowcake story and on several other stories with no corroboration at all," he said.

Bush included the reference, which was attributed to the British and turned out to be false, in his 2003 State of the Union Address.



 

The CIA in 2002 had sent former ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate the claims, and he went public in July 2003 criticizing the Bush administration's case for going to war in Iraq. The subsequent publication of his wife's identity as a CIA employee spawned an investigation that resulted in the indictment of Cheney's chief of staff and is still ongoing. (Full story)

"It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it's an intelligence failure," Drumheller told CBS' Ed Bradley. "This was a policy failure. I think, over time, people will look back on this and see this is going to be one of the great, I think, policy mistakes of all time."

The White House earlier this month reacted angrily to a report that Bush had cited trailers suspected as biological weapons labs as proof of the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after intelligence officials knew that the trailers were not part of a WMD program. (Full story)

"I cannot count how many times the president has said the intelligence was wrong," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.

He added that the administration has implemented reforms to make sure that "the executive branch and the Congress have the best possible intelligence as they move forward to deal with the threats that face this country and face this world."

Another retired CIA official in February said the Bush administration disregarded the expertise of the intelligence community, politicized the intelligence process and used unrepresentative data in making the case for war.

In an article published in the journal Foreign Affairs, Paul R. Pillar, the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, called the relationship between U.S. intelligence and policymaking "broken." (Full story)

In November 2005, CNN obtained a 2003 CIA report that raised doubts about a claim that al Qaeda sent operatives to Iraq to acquire chemical and biological weapons -- assertions that were repeated later by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations in making the case for the invasion of Iraq. (Full story)

A day after that report surfaced, Bush gave a speech on Veteran's Day in which he accused critics of the Iraq war of distorting the events that led to the U.S. invasion.

Bush said that "intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein" and that a Senate Intelligence Committee report issued in July 2004 "found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments." (Full story)

The Silberman-Robb commission, which was appointed by Bush, also found no evidence that political pressure skewed the intelligence. But neither that commission nor the Senate panel addressed how the administration made its case for war.

Senate Democrats have pressured the Intelligence Committee to complete a second phase of its report that would focus on how the prewar intelligence was used by the administration, rather than how it was produced.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq/

Scott still doesn't know what a lie is!

Sure he does.  He tells them all the time.

Veteran journalist Bob Woodward said former President George W. Bush did not lie about Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein  having weapons of mass distraction in the buildup to the 2003 Iraq war.

Woodward said, “Iraq is a symbol. You can make a persuasive argument there was a mistake. But there is a kinda line going on that Bush and the other people lied about this. I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq. Lots of mistakes, but it was Bush telling George Tenet the CIA director, don’t let anyone stretch the case on WMD. He was the one who was skeptical.

If you try to summarize why we went into Iraq, it was momentum. The war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end, people were saying, ‘Hey, look, it will only take a week or two.’ Early on it looked like it was going to take a year or 18 months, so Bush pulled the trigger. A mistake certainly can be argued, and there is an abundance of evidence. But there was no lie in this that I could find.”


For a lot of people, especially those inside the Washington Beltway who are curious about the internecine goings on that accompany the formulation of policy in administrations of both parties, The Washington Post's Bob Woodward is often the authoritative last word. He's turned up a lot of "scoops" going back to the administration of President Richard M. Nixon who he, along with then-writing partner Carl Bernstein, did more to drive from office in disgrace than just about anyone.

His latest bit of journalism isn't likely to win him any more friends on the left, as he's just knocked down a revered piece of conventional wisdom that will force a reassessment of George W. Bush's presidency. For according to Woodward, there's no evidence the 43rd president of the United States "lied" the nation into war.


End of story...


http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/05/26/bob-woodward-bush-didnt-lie-to-start-iraq-war



If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

Working with the U.S. military, the CIA purchased some 400 Borak rockets from an Iraqi seller between 2005 and 2006, uncovering and destroying reserves of sarin nerve agent, the New York Times reported.

The name of the program: Operation Avarice.

“Without speaking to any specific programs, it is fair to say that together with our coalition partners in Iraq, the U.S. military worked diligently to find and remove weapons that could be used against our troops and the Iraqi people,” Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said in a written statement.

The Borak rockets were found to contain surprisingly pure sarin, the Times reported.

The chemical weapon, which painfully destroys victims’ nervous system functioning, has been internationally condemned.

According to the Times’ report, Operation Avarice revolved around a single Iraqi who sold the weapons to the Americans in batches.

Run by the CIA office in Baghdad and the Army’s 203rd Military Intelligence Battalion, the program destroyed most of the rockets it recovered — along with thousands of other chemical weapons recovered throughout the American occupation of Iraq — though some rockets were tested in rudimentary ways that may have exposed soldiers to dangerous chemicals.

Sure he does.  He tells them all the time.

Short rounds definition of lies is like that of his definition of racism in that only conservatives can be guilty of either.

                                                                                                                                       

yeah, woodward is a genius.  he said this, according to the bullshit you just posted:  "Iraq is a symbol. You can make a persuasive argument there was a mistake (!!!)"

NO SHIT!!  4500 DEAD SOLDIERS, ANOTHER 35,000 WOUNDED AND 100,000 DEAD IRAQI CIVILIANS, PLUS HOWEVER MANY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WASTED, IS A "PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT," CONSIDERING THERE WERE NO WMDS, NO TIES TO IRAQ AND NO TIES TO 9/11....all of this has been admitted by Bush and Cheney and Rice, the main powers of the government when this incredibly awful decision to invade on no evidence was launched.  the only evidence was second hand hearsay from paid off Iraqi exiles like chalabi, who sat behind Laura Bush at the 2004 SOTU speech and who ended up becoming the Iraqi oil minister (surprise!  surprise!) when the Iranian friendly new Iraq government was formulated.  even if what old man woodward claimed years after the fact was all the way true, every word, it still doesn't excuse bush's lie to invade- that after 3 months on the ground with complete access, blix and his team of inspectors could find no traces of all this massive shit the bush liars had told this country Iraq had and was just waiting to unleash on the world- and bush said there WAS "NO DOUBT" IRAQ POSSESSED THIS STUFF, WHEN THERE WAS NOTHING BUT DOUBT!!  THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, NO ATMOSPHERIC TRACES, NO VERIFIED VIDEOS OR DOCUMENTS OR TRANSCRIPTS OR PHONE CALLS, NO NOTHING, THERE COULD NOT BE- IRAQ HAD NO WMDS!!!  HOW CAN YOU MORONIC ASSHOLES STILL KEEP ARGUING THIS RIGHT WING BULLSHIT?

Woodward said, “Iraq is a symbol. You can make a persuasive argument there was a mistake. But there is a kinda line going on that Bush and the other people lied about this. I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq. Lots of mistakes, but it was Bush telling George Tenet the CIA director, don’t let anyone stretch the case on WMD. He was the one who was skeptical.

If you try to summarize why we went into Iraq, it was momentum. The war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end, people were saying, ‘Hey, look, it will only take a week or two.’ Early on it looked like it was going to take a year or 18 months, so Bush pulled the trigger. A mistake certainly can be argued, and there is an abundance of evidence. But there was no lie in this that I could find.”

Scott still doesn't know what a lie is!

On FOX this morning they were talking about how the gas attacks were carried out by Isis using low quality mustard gas that they had manufactured

Working with the U.S. military, the CIA purchased some 400 Borak rockets from an Iraqi seller between 2005 and 2006, uncovering and destroying reserves of sarin nerve agent, the New York Times reported.

The name of the program: Operation Avarice.

“Without speaking to any specific programs, it is fair to say that together with our coalition partners in Iraq, the U.S. military worked diligently to find and remove weapons that could be used against our troops and the Iraqi people,” Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said in a written statement.

The Borak rockets were found to contain surprisingly pure sarin, the Times reported.

The chemical weapon, which painfully destroys victims’ nervous system functioning, has been internationally condemned.

According to the Times’ report, Operation Avarice revolved around a single Iraqi who sold the weapons to the Americans in batches.

Run by the CIA office in Baghdad and the Army’s 203rd Military Intelligence Battalion, the program destroyed most of the rockets it recovered — along with thousands of other chemical weapons recovered throughout the American occupation of Iraq — though some rockets were tested in rudimentary ways that may have exposed soldiers to dangerous chemicals.

Good post.

CBS/AP/ March 12, 2016

Security and hospital officials say the latest attack took place early Saturday in Taza, which was also struck by a barrage of rockets carrying chemicals three days earlier.

Sameer Wais, whose daughter Fatima was killed in the attack, is a member of a Shiite militia fighting ISIS in Kirkuk province. He said he was on duty at the frontline when the attack occurred early in the morning, quickly ran home and said he could still smell the chemicals in the rocket.

By the next morning, Fatima had died, Wais said.

The hundreds of wounded are suffering from infected burns, suffocation and dehydration, said Helmi Hamdi, a nurse at the Taza hospital. He said eight people were transferred to Baghdad for treatment.

"There is fear and panic among the women and children," said Adel Hussein, a local official in Taza. "They're calling for the central government to save them." Hussein said a German and an American forensics team arrived in the area to test for the presence of chemical agents.

CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reported Delta Force commandos captured the Iraqi who had once worked for the regime of Saddam Hussein. After interrogating him, U.S. intelligence was able to identify a building in Mosul where mustard agent was manufactured and loaded into artillery shells.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iraqi-officials-isis-chemical-weapons-attacks-kill-child-wound-600/

not that shit again....good god.  yeah, they found some old toxic bullshit left in the desert produced 20 years ago instead of destroyed.  did you see pictures of this crap you morons are claiming was so deadly?  do you really think whatever they found rotting in the desert is what Bush was talking about when he said Iraq is so dangerous with all these wmds Iraq "no doubt" has that we cannot even wait for the UN to end the cease fire first?

"25,000 liters of anthrax ... 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent ... upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents ... several mobile biological weapons labs ... thousands of Iraqi security personnel ... at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors."

George Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

here is how unweaponized the toxic shit found rotting in the desert was:

 But what is never mentioned is that these weapons, made 20, 25 or 30 years ago, are certainly unusable, having long since passed their stable shelf-life, according to the Department of Defense's own documents based on a decade of international inspections, electronic surveillance and information supplied by spies and defectors.

Strangely, the U.S. media have, with almost no exceptions, failed to mention that most bio/chemical agents have a rather limited shelf life. The few who do usually quote Scott Ritter, former UN Iraqi weapons inspector.

The chemical weapons which Iraq has been known to possess -- nerve agents like sarin and tabun -- have a shelf life of five years, VX just a bit longer. Saddam's major bio weapons are hardly any better; botulinum toxin is potent for about three years, and liquid anthrax about the same (under the right conditions). And he adds that since all chemical weapons were made in Iraq's only chemical weapons complex- the Muthanna State establishment, which was blown up during the first Gulf War in 1991 -- and all biological weapons plants and research papers were clearly destroyed by 1998, any remaining bio/chemical weapons stores are now "harmless, useless goo."

But the truth of the matter is that Iraq's WMD may have even less of a shelf life-- and the U.S. government knows it.

So what is the MCTL's opinion of Iraq's chemical weapons program? In making its chemical nerve agents, "The Iraqis . . . produced a mixture which was inherently unstable," says the report. "When the Iraqis produced chemical munitions they appeared to adhere to a make and use regimen. Judging by the information Iraq gave the United Nations, later verified by on-site inspections, Iraq had poor product quality for their nerve agents. This low quality was likely due to a lack of purification. They had to get the agent to the front promptly or have it degrade in the munition."

Furthermore, says this Defense Department report, "The chemical munitions found in Iraq after the [first] Gulf War contained badly deteriorated agents and a significant proportion were visibly leaking." The shelf life of these poorly made agents were said to be a few weeks at best -- hardly the stuff of vast chemical weapons stores.





here is a picture of what lying ass jerkwater is talking about.  does this look like something so dangerous we needed to lose 4500 soldiers to stop?

here is the lowdown on that super deadly chemical attack that killed one person recently in Iraq that jerkwater apparently thinks is somehow connected to the wmds Iraq did not have when bush invaded on lies.  this is from the story jerkwater half ass quoted- leaving out the part where this stuff was being produced TODAY BY ISIS, and the plant was apparently blown up recently.  and then a fox article talking about how easy and relatively non-dangerous this low grade shit is.  nothing to do with Bush and his lies. 

Video released by the British Defense Ministry shows a building described as an ISIS weapons factory being destroyed by an airstrike last weekend.


By the Pentagon's count, ISIS has mounted a dozen chemical weapons attacks in Iraq and Syria, a fact confirmed by CIA Director John Brennan in a "60 Minutes" interview.


The U.S.-led coalition said the chemicals ISIS has so far used include chlorine and a low-grade sulfur mustard which is not very potent. "It's a legitimate threat. It's not a high threat. We're not, frankly, losing too much sleep over it," U.S. Army Col. Steve Warren told reporters.

and from fox noise:  http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/05/17/fast-facts-mustard-gas.html

Experts say making mustard gas is easier than making nerve gases but harder than weaponizing industrial chemicals such as chlorine. It would take vastly more mustard gas than nerve gas to kill the same number of people, limiting mustard gas' appeal to terrorists.

Still Scott makes it clear he doesn't know what a lie is!

You would think he would know, since he tells so many lies.

someone masquerading as a duke calling another a liar

Get your head out of your asshole, cass-hole.

yer the one with the phoney name

As for Hillary voting for the war, so the hell what?  She later stated that she had made a mistake in doing so.

How many more mistakes will she make?   She was gangbusters behind Obama going to Libya with regime change where there were no WMDs or congressional resolution, at all.  That was another mistake.  How many more?

she didn't vote for the war.  I thought you morons could read?  the Iraq Resolution as written never authorized force unless Iraq did not not allow inspectors back in.  they did a month later.  resolution no longer in force.  get it?  besides, it also only authorized force against those who attacked us on 9/11 AND BUSH AND CHENEY AND RICE ALL ADMITTED IRAQ WAS NOT TIED TO 9/11, EVEN THOUGH THEY DID SAY IT WAS UNTIL AFTER THE INVASION.

and duke of john is either ankle biting his superiors with one sentence feeble attempts at insults, or kissing dvd's ass for being a deranged right wing puppet in a one sentence salute to his ignorance.