Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
02 17, 19, 11:45:33:PM

Login with username and password

Democrats Responsible for need of Border Wall.
Republicans don't a Wall, Republicans want a Border.
Democrats don't want a Border. So now we need a Wall.

Search:     Advanced search
2132456 Posts in 242134 Topics by 302 Members
Latest Member: test
* Website Home Help Login Register
 |  All Boards  |  Moved Hot Topics  |  Topic: The LIE has ended. WMDs was not a Lie. 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 13 Print
Author Topic: The LIE has ended. WMDs was not a Lie.  (Read 2951 times)
Sadie402
Sr. Member

Posts: 10664


« Reply #12 on: 03 07, 16, 05:27:30:PM » Reply

Your subject line is the lie.
scott_free
Shoulder fired ground to air missiles have no moral status, since they have no will of their own. Everybody get some.
Honored Member

Posts: 6742


« Reply #13 on: 03 07, 16, 06:11:46:PM » Reply

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!!
scott_free
Shoulder fired ground to air missiles have no moral status, since they have no will of their own. Everybody get some.
Honored Member

Posts: 6742


« Reply #14 on: 03 07, 16, 06:12:32:PM » Reply

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

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...
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/

Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found - seattlepi.com
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...

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.
Jim
When someone claims to have an Open Mind they are soon shocked, dismayed, and offended that there actually are other views.
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 46387

What would they do without Anecdotals or Snark


« Reply #15 on: 03 07, 16, 11:46:21:PM » Reply

 
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......            
Ummmmmmmmmm      Yeah,   Judith Miller wins...
scott_free
Shoulder fired ground to air missiles have no moral status, since they have no will of their own. Everybody get some.
Honored Member

Posts: 6742


« Reply #16 on: 03 08, 16, 06:52:50:AM » Reply

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


* clint revulsion.gif (857.69 KB, 240x228 - viewed 42 times.)
sweetwater5s9
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 99144


« Reply #17 on: 03 08, 16, 07:18:23:AM » Reply

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, 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, 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 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/

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

Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco.
scott_free
Shoulder fired ground to air missiles have no moral status, since they have no will of their own. Everybody get some.
Honored Member

Posts: 6742


« Reply #18 on: 03 08, 16, 07:22:38:AM » Reply

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?
sweetwater5s9
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 99144


« Reply #19 on: 03 08, 16, 10:51:14:AM » Reply

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, 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, 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 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/
scott_free
Shoulder fired ground to air missiles have no moral status, since they have no will of their own. Everybody get some.
Honored Member

Posts: 6742


« Reply #20 on: 03 08, 16, 11:20:56:AM » Reply

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. 
Local5th
Sr. Member

Posts: 30359

God is Great Beer is Good and People are Crazy


« Reply #21 on: 03 08, 16, 11:41:35:AM » Reply

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.
caserio1
Sr. Member

Posts: 89418


« Reply #22 on: 03 08, 16, 11:45:40:AM » Reply

there were no wmds.....not ever
Local5th
Sr. Member

Posts: 30359

God is Great Beer is Good and People are Crazy


« Reply #23 on: 03 08, 16, 11:51:08:AM » Reply

there were no wmds.....not ever

There were never any serious attacks on our ships in the Gulf of Tonkin either.
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 13 Print 
 |  All Boards  |  Moved Hot Topics  |  Topic: The LIE has ended. WMDs was not a Lie.
Jump to:  

AesopsRetreat Links


AesopsRetreat
YouTube Channel


Build The Wall
Go FundMe Link



Rules For Radicals.



2nd Amendment Source



5 minute Education




Join Me at KIVA
My Kiva Stats


Truth About
Slaves and Indians




r/K Theory




White Privilege




Conservatives:
What Do We Believe


Part 1:
Small Govt & Free Enterprise

Part 2:

The Problem with Elitism

Part 3:
Wealth Creation

Part 4:
Natural Law



Global Warming Scam



Lend a hand


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP © AesopsRetreat
Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.063 seconds with 37 queries.