Did George W. Bush lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ?
Not looking for controversy here, just some facts from former LLNL/LANL employees. No classified please.
I remember distinctly before the second Iraq invasion that a colleague of mine working in nuclear intelligence commented that the "business" around the precision aluminum tubes was a fraud. He stated that the Labs knew that there was no connection with any past or present isotope separation program in Iraq, and that the accusation on behalf of the Bush administration was a fraud.
Other so called evidence, like the presence of chemicals to make agricultural products, was also "cooked up" to back the claim that Iraq had an active chemical weapons program prior to the invasion.
112 comments:
You ask for facts, and start by repeating old left-wing talking points. You say you are not interested in controversy and then initiate it. Just another troll.
What did it matter if he lied? After 9/11 we had to kill lots people so Iraq was as good as place as any to do it. Was it worth it, well we have not had a major terrorist attack since 9/11 so maybe we scared the world enough to think that Americans really are crazy m*kers who can will kill lots people when we want to so it might be better not f with them because who knows what will happen.
There how is that for an view that piss off all sides. Can we move on now and go back to bashing scientists.
"What did it matter if he lied?"
It mattered a lot ! Millions died, US service men died. Billions $ wasted. What was gained other than handing Iraq over to an Iranian backed government that has murderously persecuted the Sunni population, the result at least partially responsible for the rise of ISIS/ISIL.
These aren't left wing talking points, just the plain facts.
This is an ISIS troll.
LLNL folks cannot divulge claasified information without proper ADC review and release. Nor can we comment on related topics in the public sphere. It's what we signed up for. Just like Hillary. Only we follow it and she doesn't.
In this one important respect Inam better person thstbthst careless cunt.
Over 5000 chemical weapon shells were found in Iraq. You can even read about it in the New York Times (a very liberal newspaper).
Some troll will probably write in to claim that none of the shells were still toxic. If someone makes that claim, it's false. The binary nerve gas shells were still extremely dangerous - some chemical disposal experts were exposed and injured trying to move these shells. The mustard gas shells were as toxic as the day they were made.
"What did it matter if he lied? After 9/11 we had to kill lots people so Iraq was as good as place as any to do it. Was it worth it, well we have not had a major terrorist attack since 9/11 so maybe we scared the world enough to think that Americans really are crazy m*kers who can will kill lots people when we want to so it might be better not f with them because who knows what will happen.
There how is that for an view that piss off all sides. Can we move on now and go back to bashing scientists. "
I thought we moved on. Ok we knew that Suadia Arabia was behind 9/11 which is clear by all the families that left right after 9/11 and where all the hijackers where from but but for very good political reasons and the moderate size scale of 9/11 event it was simply not a good idea to invade Suadia Arabia, however we could kill hundreds of thousands of Sunnis in Iraq just to make a point about how crazy the west really is and what could happen. No one cares if Iraq had chemical weapons, literally every country has these types of weapons they are very easy to make, mustard gas goes back to WWI. The politicians are not as dumb as you think, invading Iraq was about world stability and making sure that there will not be state sponsored mass destruction terrorist attack on the world. Any time it happens the death toll will be 100 fold back to someone. After what we did to Iraq for 9/11 do these countries have any doubt about what we would do if a nuke goes off in the United States? Invading Iraq was to make a clear statement and it was made. As a side bonus maybe we could do nation building help oppressed people etc but those are secondary considerations.
I believe the comment made at March 3, 2016 at 11:49 PM does not meet the standard prohibiting foul language. Please, doobydew, remove it. The hatred in these comments is bad enough.
Exactly.
No back to Trump's junk.
Iraq didn't have just mustard gas, they had modern nerve gas, Sarin, too. They also had modern binary nerve gas shells. Sorry, every country doesn't have these kinds of extremely toxic nerve gasses, in fact, very few countries have this stuff.
Did you forget that Iraq attacked Kuwait?
Did you ever think that bin Laden purposefully recruited Saudis to perpetrate the attack in an attempt to fool the U.S. into going after the Saudis? You do know that bin Laden was trying to overthrow the Saudi royal family, don't you?
By the way, ALL of the hijackers were NOT from Saudi Arabia (notice the correct spelling?). 15 of the 19 were, 4 weren't.
There were no weapons found as per Bush. The chemical weapons that were found predate the Iraq war by nearly two decades and were manufactured with the help of the United states. Get your facts straight before you post.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2793452/u-s-troops-did-chemical-weapons-iraq-pentagon-kept-secret-discovery-5-000-warheads-shells-saddam-hussein-s-abandoned-weapons-program-hushed-soldiers-injured.html
So the age of the chemical weapons was posted nearby so that intel agents could easily see they were old? Get a grip.
>Iraq didn't have just mustard gas, they had modern nerve gas, Sarin, too. They >also had modern binary nerve gas shells. Sorry, every country doesn't have these >kinds of extremely toxic nerve gasses, in fact, very few countries have this stuff.
Lets invade Syria and Japan too. Any country can make this stuff real fast if they wanted too. We do not care that anyone has this stuff including Iraq. We never went after Iraq for chemical weapons.
>Did you forget that Iraq attacked Kuwait?
I thought that was the first gulf war jackass.
>Did you ever think that bin Laden purposefully recruited Saudis to perpetrate the >attack in an attempt to fool the U.S. into going after the Saudis? You do know >that bin Laden was trying to overthrow the Saudi royal family, don't you?
Yes, indeed and that is way we attacked Iraq and not the Saudi Arabia, someone had to to be killed so Iraq was a safer target.
>By the way, ALL of the hijackers were NOT from Saudi Arabia (notice the correct >spelling?). 15 of the 19 were, 4 weren't.
And your point is? My point is that after 9/11 we had to kill lots and lots of people and people in Iraq where politically the best people to kill. It was to show that the US is filled crazy people that are able and ready to kill and kill we did. The message is attack us and lots of people will die. It worked for Rome and it has worked for the US. It is called world stability and trust me Europe was all for it.
March 4, 2016 at 5:55 PM
1) The second Iraq war happened because Iraq was violating the disarmament requirements imposed upon them after the 1st Iraq war. Wow, and you think I'm the jackass?
2)Amongst other WMD, we DID go into Iraq after their chemical weapons. Read the speech by Colin Powell to the United Nations. Read slowly when you get to the part about Iraq continuing to possess banned chemical weapons. Read it all, then stop trying to revise history.
3) The US did not help manufacture Iraq's chemical weapons. Most of the external help Iraq got came from German companies. Some of the shells were copied from U.S. designs but were made with the help of Spanish companies. Read about the Iraqi chemical weapon programs - then stop making stuff up.
4) What was my point about all the hijackers not coming from Saudi Arabia? My point was you lied.
5) The world does care about chemical weapons. That's why there is a worldwide ban and organizations to track and prevent the use of chemical weapons.
>1) The second Iraq war happened because Iraq was violating the disarmament >requirements imposed upon them after the 1st Iraq war. Wow, and you think I'm the >jackass?
The only problem is that we did not care about chemical weapons and by the time of second war Iraq did not have them anyway.
>2)Amongst other WMD, we DID go into Iraq after their chemical weapons. Read the >speech by Colin Powell to the United Nations. Read slowly when you get to the part >about Iraq continuing to possess banned chemical weapons. Read it all, then stop >trying to revise history.
Are you so naive to think they where actually telling the truth? Read some history books to get an idea of how honest people are about the reasons they invade countries. There may be very good reasons to do it but these are usually way to subtle for the populace to understand. Here is a hint, the first gulf war was not about freeing the people of Kuwait, it was about oil. Sure it sounds inhumane to say you are going war with a country over oil, but the average Joe is not going to understand the Geo-political reasons why a steady and secure oil supply to the US and world is absoutly vital.
>3) The US did not help manufacture Iraq's chemical weapons. Most of the external >help Iraq got came from German companies. Some of the shells were copied from U.S. >designs but were made with the help of Spanish companies. Read about the Iraqi >chemical weapon programs - then stop making stuff up.
And we did not care that they had chemical weapons, they got rid of almost all of this stuff anyway by the time of the second Gulf war.
>4) What was my point about all the hijackers not coming from Saudi Arabia? My >point was you lied.
Yes but you have no idea if Suadi Arabia was or was not behind 9/11, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that that was the case. Iraq was almost certainly not. No matter who was ultimately behind 9/11 that plan scare the hell out of them by killing lots of people in Iraq. Make no mistake the invasion of Iraq was all about 9/11. Did Bush lie? Yes of course he lied but his job is to lie in order to get the job done in a way that is the most politically expedient, just like all leaders have to do. He did not lie in the sense that it was about the long term security of the United States and the world. There is no way a political leader can ever tell the truth to the populace as they are just too stupid to understand complexities and nuances of Geo-politics. Did Hillary lie about Benghazi, yes of course she did as that is part of her job and there are probably very good reason she did but idiots like you would not be able to understand it. Do you think Trump is actually going to build a wall? No of course not but he can not say that he will work on a variety of subtle ways to get a more rational immigration policy since someone like you could never hope to understand this.
>5) The world does care about chemical weapons. That's why there is a worldwide ban >and organizations to track and prevent the use of chemical weapons.
No they do not care about chemical weapons as they are really not very effective anyway the point of tracking them is to have a credible reason to monitor a country to gather all sorts of information. Saying we want to check for chemical weapons sounds much better than "we want to send people in to gather every bit of information we can about you". Man you are one naive person, try reading Gibbons the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. None of this is new and has been the way politics is done since societies are formed.
March 5, 2016 at 8:46 AM
You have posted a masterpiece of obfuscation, speculation, misdirection, ignoring of clear facts, replacement of actual events with discredited versions, and just plain aggressive, know-nothing ignorance. March 5, 2016 at 8:05 AM may want to respond to you point by point (again), but you certainly aren't worth my time, especially since all you do is repeat your same statements after they've been refuted.
March 4, 2016 at 9:45 PM
You are ignorant. Those buried artillery shells were un earthed during Bush's presidency. We were never told about them and why?
a) These weapons were developed with the help of the United States so we already knew they existed.
b) No one disputed the fact that Iraq possessed chemical weapons.
If you educate yourself you will find the reason the U.S. invaded Iraq was to stop the production of weapons of mass destruction both chemical and nuclear. The Bush administration claimed that Iraq was actively producing chemical weapons and actively pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. There were no facilities found to produce either and that is an undisputed fact. They had been dismantled years ago. The artillery shells that were found while Bush was still in office were produced decades ago and had nothing to do with the reason we invaded Iraq.
March 4, 2016 at 6:50 AM
I read the N.Y. Times article...this is what it said.
"The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West."
Truth hurts sometimes. Bush lied.
Bush may have lied, but Hillary is currently lying.
The truth may indeed hurt.
" especially since all you do is repeat your same statements after they've been refuted.
March 5, 2016 at 10:45 AM"
How where any of the statements refuted? 8:05 AM is simply a very naive and highly confused individual utterly unaware of how international politics have worked since the time of the dinosaurs.
>Truth hurts sometimes. Bush lied.
And so did every other president in history. After 9/11 the American people and world wanted blood. Blowing up rocks in Afghanistan was not cutting it so someone had to go down and Iraq fit the bill nicely. Busch could have said that we where invading Iraq because they where killing Kurds, killing Shia, or killing some other ethnics groups that could have worked as well but weapons of mass destruction sounds a bit better. Ask your self this question, did you yourself actually feel concerned about Iraq having chemical weapons or where you just still pissed about 9/11 and said "lets get em". It could have been Libya, Iran, Syria, Pakistan or even France and you still would have said "lets get em". In 2003 all these countries all had weapons of mass destruction and persecuted minorities but if you had to pick one Iraq seems like the most politically expedient to go after. Look I am not saying it was bad thing to do since it sent a message but just ask yourself what was the real reason you personally wanted Iraq to be attacked, be very honest about your personal motivation and you will also have the answer why the United States invaded Iraq.
Hillary is lying about what? Bengahzi was a terrorist attack or not? Why is that so important? What difference would it make how the Bengahzi attack was portrayed? I know what the answer is but I'll bet you don't.
I didn't "personally" want one damn thing. Obviously YOU take all of this personally, where you had absolutely no "personal" stake and after 10 years you still can't grow up and get over yourself. Have a good life!
Hillary is lying about what? Bengahzi was a terrorist attack or not? Why is that so important? What difference would it make how the Bengahzi attack was portrayed? I know what the answer is but I'll bet you don't.
March 5, 2016 at 9:29 PM
Obama was going to win anyway, lying about Bengahzi had nothing to do with that. It was a Geo-political decision but even if the exact nature of this was told you, you would not understand it. Hint it had something to do with arms going to Turkey. Not the thanksgiving Turkey but the country and this country has neighbors, (hint,hint).
Go look at a map and think really hard. I know this is hopeless but give it a shot.
"I didn't "personally" want one damn thing. Obviously YOU take all of this personally, where you had absolutely no "personal" stake and after 10 years you still can't grow up and get over yourself. Have a good life!
March 5, 2016 at 9:29 PM"
Odd, you where the one implying that Bush did not lie. Either you are a total dumb ass or something deep within in you really wanted to believe something that was so obviously false and irrelevant. So what could the latter be, come clean.
After 9/11 someone/anyone had to pay, it is the American way.
Wrong. This all started with the Republican assertion that Clinton portrayed the attack as something other than terrorism to influence voter perception in an election year. Thats what started this witch hunt. To date there has been zero evidence that was the case. At the end of the day it was really just a concoction by the gop to score political points. Do some research before you post next time.
8:46
Your response to #1 is false. Iraq was hiding chemical weapons at the time of the second Iraq war. Chemical weapons were found from 2005 to as late as 2011.
Your response to #2 is false. The US did care that Iraq did not disarm themselves of banned Chemical Weapon WMD. Read Colin Powell's speech to the UN AGAIN. This time actually read it. We not only went in to find their chemical weapons, WE DID find them and we did confiscate them.
Your response to #3 is false. Iraq had 5,000 chemical weapon shells hidden at the time of the 2nd Iraq war. They didn't get rid of this stuff, they USED their chemical weapons.
Your response to #4 was an intentional attempt to draw the conversation away from the point. What was the point? The point was that you lied. Instead of just admitting it and moving on, you respond with an insane rant. All 19 hijackers were members of al Qaeda and you think the evidence points to Saudi Arabia? al Qaeda was trying to overthrow the Saudis, they weren't acting on behalf of the Saudis. All the intelligence proved that bin Laden was behind it, but you persist?
Your answer to #5 is false. Currently, 192 countries are signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention, including the U.S. You think that your word means more than the efforts of 192 countries to rid the Earth of Chemical Weapons? Dude, your word means nothing because you are clearly mentally ill.
Just to be clear. The so called wmd that was found was unusable. It had been lying burried for decades. The munitions had deteriorated to the point that they were leaking. The biggest danger was to Iraq, not the U.S.or anyone else.
March 6, 2016 at 7:47 AM
If all these chemical weapons where found how come we have never heard about them? You would think this would have been a huge news story in 2005, but nothing. Also if they used the weapons we would have had US troops attacked and died in mass since they are suppose to be weapons of mass destruction. You would figure some news agency would have a huge scoop on their hands with this but nothing. Trump said no weapons of mass destruction and I not remember Cruz or Rubio saying oh yes they did, would of made a great sound bite. So apparently even these think there where no WMDs.
From Ted Cruz himself
"The entire predicate of the war against Iraq was the intelligence that showed they had weapons of mass destruction and that there was a real risk that they might use them," Cruz said. "Now I would note there was a bipartisan consensus of both Republicans and Democrats looking at that intelligence [who] concluded it was a real threat. We now know that intelligence was false."
Rubio
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, one of the more hawkish 2016 presidential candidates, said on Wednesday that he would not have authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq if the U.S. had known there were no weapons of mass destruction there.
Trump
I will tell you. They lied. And they said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction,” Trump said.
The fact that you quote Trump as somehow knowledgeable about anything just shows how gullible you and all his other followers are. You'll probably get what you are asking for, and you, and the rest of us, will be very, very sorry.
The fact that you quote Trump as somehow knowledgeable about anything just shows how gullible you and all his other followers are. You'll probably get what you are asking for, and you, and the rest of us, will be very, very sorry.
March 6, 2016 at 10:01 AM
I never said Trump was knolwdgable my point was is that if 7.47AM is right than you would figure Cruz or Rubio or their staffers might know this as well and jump on Trump for this. Of course it is possible that they all lack knowledge, it is just odd that with so many staffers on their campaigns that no one has the same knowledge that 7.47AM seems to have. There is one other possibility which is that 7.47AM is just wrong.
The reason the Bush administration never revealed they had found chemical and biological weapons is that those weapons were made with U.S. help. It would have been a huge embarrassment to Bush so he lied about it. Also, the weapons were so old and dilapidated they no longer fit the description of WMD. They were no longer a threat.
The reason the Bush administration never revealed they had found chemical and biological weapons is that those weapons were made with U.S. help. It would have been a huge embarrassment to Bush so he lied about it. Also, the weapons were so old and dilapidated they no longer fit the description of WMD. They were no longer a threat.
March 6, 2016 at 11:32 AM
Ok so there was no WMD, so indeed 7.47 AM is wrong and probably a fool. Can we move on now?
Also, the weapons were so old and dilapidated they no longer fit the description of WMD. They were no longer a threat.
March 6, 2016 at 11:32 AM
No threat? Tell that to the 17 American service members and 7 Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve gas and/or mustard agents after 2003, by some of the 5000 chemical warheads discovered in Iraq. In the summer of 2006 alone, over 2,400 nerve-agent rockets were found at a former Republican Guard compound. (All according to the NY Times, published 10/14/2014)
They were no threat to the U.S.. The biggest threat was to Iraq itself.Does that clear things up for you? I understand that you want to cling to the notion that Iraq possessed WMD and were planning on using it but it just wasn't the case. Bush lied about it. He lied about the intelligence that lead us to war and then he lied about the discovery of deteriorated, useless chemical and biological weapons that were discovered burried in Iraq.
Bush lied about it. He lied about the intelligence that lead us to war and then he lied about the discovery of deteriorated, useless chemical and biological weapons that were discovered burried in Iraq.
March 6, 2016 at 4:49 PM
Read the NY Times article. The 2400 nerve-gas rockets were not "deteriorated" or "useless." They were being stored for future use. Your "Bush lied" refrain is sounding pretty juvenile by now, the classic school-yard chant: "liar liar pants on fire." Just about as thoughtful and reality-based.
March 6, 2016 at 7:24 PM
>Read the NY Times article.
You might just want to reread that article, it sort of says the opposite of what you are saying.
No, I just repeated what facts they said, I just didn't buy into their spin of the situation against Bush.
Told you that some troll would write in to falsely claim that the chemical weapons found in Iraq were not usable. The fact is that many of the weapons WERE still usable. These weapons and the toxic chemicals the Iraqis were hiding were still a threat to Iraq's neighbors (including Kuwait and Israel) and were a threat to U.S. and other U.S. allies' interests throughout the region.
Sorry, but it was a big story. Those that claim it wasn't a big story obviously get their news from the wrong sources or they weren't paying any attention at all.
Well lets bring this whole thing full circle and back to the NNSA labs and more specifically LANL since all posts end up about LANL. So what do chemical weapons in Iraq have to do with why LANL is failing and profit?
Wait for it,...wait for it, ....you guessed it BECHTEL!!!
http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/05/09/straight-to-bechtel/
In 1988, Bechtel inked a $2 billion deal with Saddam to build and operate a huge petro-chemical plant outside Baghdad. On its foul menu of toxic chemicals, the plant brewed up large batches of ethylene oxide, an ingredient in the manufacture of plastic.
But ethylene oxide also has another use. It is a chemical precursor for the manufacture of mustard gas. Despite prohibitions against providing Iraq with so-called dual use chemicals, Bechtel didn’t pull out of the project until the first Gulf War appeared to be immanent.
No sanctions were ever level against the company for supplying Saddam’s regime with the building blocks for restocking his chemical weapons arsenal. Indeed, when Iraq submitted its much derided inventory of its chemical weapons stockpile to the UN in the fall of 2002, it identified Bechtel as a chief supplier. This embarrassing disclosure, however, was redacted by the Bush administration before the documents were released to the press. It only came to light after the French released the uncensored documents and by then the US press couldn’t be bothered to pursue the story.
Along with its old emissary Donald Rumsfeld-who, only hours after witnessing the walls of the Pentagon crumple from an attack by a passenger jet commandeered by a Saudi, called for the bombing of Iraq-Bechtel geared up for war on Saddam. For the job, it hauled out the company’s old war-horse, George Shultz, then serving as a Bechtel board member and senior counselor.
With public support for the war showing signs of wavering in the late fall of 2002, Shultz penned an article in the Washington Post which called for the ouster of his old friend and business partner Saddam Hussein. In the past, Shultz had dismissed as unavoidable trifles of war the gassing of Iraqi Kurds and Iranian troops in the interest of doing business with the Iraqi dictator. But now, even though his own company had built a dual use chemical plant for Saddam, Shultz begged the public to support an invasion of Iraq to eliminate those very same weapons of mass destruction. “A strong foundation exists for immediate military action against Hussein and for a multilateral effort to rebuild Iraq after he is gone,” Shultz wrote. Here multilateral should be translated as multinational, as in multinational corporations, like Bechtel.
When local Iraqi officials object or try to offer advice, they are ignored or bullied. “The impression we get is that Bechtel is more powerful than the US Army,” says Dr. Nabil Khudair Abbas, a top official with the new Iraqi government’s Ministry of Education.
No one reviews or evaluates Bechtel’s work. It’s too dangerous and few non-Iraqis give a damn, anyway. Certainly, not the Bechtel executives, operating out of their opulent penthouses in Qatar and Kuwait City.
“If the Americans had given us the money directly, we could have done a much better job,” says Abdeel Razzaq Ali, headmaster of the Anbariyn School in a poor, Shiite area of Baghdad. “We do we need Bechtel? They have done absolutely nothing.”
longtime CEO Stephen Bechtel: “We’re more about making money, than making things.”
I think the real news is that so called WMD was discovered on Bush's watch and he failed to reveal that fact. In other words,he lied. He lied about intelligence to justify invading Iraq and then,once there, lied about what was found. That answers the question.
The guy who keeps calling everyone a troll doesn't seem to know what a troll is. He seems to think a troll is somebody who disagrees with him. Ignorance is bliss.
"Did George Bush lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq"
Answer: yes
Public fact. The USA army found and destroyed chemical waepons in Iraq.
R. Natinal interests require governments to withhold information, to misdirect and to mislead. To the enemy, to friends, to citizens, to each other and perhaps even to themselves. It necessary from the principle of the lesser of two evils. Though institutions and protocols are in place to provide some accountabilty basically in these matters we must trust those we have elected to lead us. It can be regularly abused.
Simply put, if a president breaths, he lies. It is required.
Our permission is not b
Nrcessary.
It is a different kind of observation to state that Trump (or the Bushs or the Clintons) are jackasses. This is not a characteristic required by the position. It is a choice to offend others with such regularity and disdain that this comparison applies.
Simply put, if a president breaths, he lies. It is required.
False, it is black and white. My mind is too simple to follow something complex.
Hussein led Iraq publically violated UN sanctionsto a sufficient degree to justify his forced removal, punishment and regime change, In retrospect, it was harder to accomplish than thought. In retrospect, it may not have been wise to do so, Perhaps it was worth the pain and loss. History may be clearer 100 years from now.
I suspect that for a particular generation this unresolved question will be a lifetime burden. As the raw unresolved outcome of the Viet Nam War has defined the politics of the current ruling generation.
As the raw unresolved outcome of the Viet Nam War has defined the politics of the current ruling generation.
March 7, 2016 at 6:24 AM
So we will have to way 50 years before we know if Viet Nam was worth it?
Public fact. The USA found and destroyed chemical weapons in Iraq.
And Bush lied about it. That's what this thread is about.
Bill Clinton lied about Monica. Obama lied about Guantanamo. Yawn.
We aren't discussing that. If you would like to discuss that then leave a post for the owner of this blog.
By the way, no one died because Clinton got a blow job.
What is the difference between a lie, and a belief in something that turns out not to be true? What is the difference between a lie, and classifying information that you believe would damage national security to release? What is the difference between a lie, and pledge to achieve something that turns out not to be achievable? What is the difference between a lie, and changing your mind in the face of new information? What is the difference between hating someone because he lies, and calling someone a liar because you hate him?
What is the difference between hating someone because he lies, and calling someone a liar because you hate him?
Or her.
March 7, 2016 at 2:33 PM
What difference, at this point, does it make?
Yes, Bush lied and his administration worked really really hard to justify what he wanted which was to use 9/11 to "do" Saddam Hussein. This was said to me directly by officials in D.C. It seemed to me that he wanted to go after Hussein and show that he could deal with a situation his father couldn't. There were also the ideas: the region would be more peaceful without the trouble-making Hussein; Iraq would become a peaceful democracy and be a beacon for democracy in the region; we would get guaranteed access to oil and it would pay for the war. Administration people even lied to try to convince the American people Hussein had something to do with 9/11. They were well aware this was not true.
There was a possibility that Iraq had WMD. No one really knew for sure and there was an understandable frenzy to try to protect the country after 9/11. Inspectors were not allowed into many facilities in Iraq raising fears. Congress voted to authorize war and then the inspectors got to go anywhere they wanted whenever they wanted. The inspectors then discovered that there really weren't any WMD. There were some things that were buried but nothing that was likely to be used in an attack on the US or US allies. The inspectors I spoke with said the war was a huge mistake and that there was no WMD.
However the analysts I spoke with were convinced there were WMD and the inspectors who were on the ground in Iraq and really knew what was going on were ignored. The analysts were reading the unfiltered reports from Curveball and anyone else who the administration could find to say there were WMD. If these reports had been vetted, they would have been discounted but Bush lieutenants wanted raw data so they could make their own determination and they did not want to hear any thing that might have discounted the most hysterical reports they could find.
Our best troops were pulled out of Afghanistan and that war and the actual perpetrators of 9/11 were forgotten so we could "do" Iraq. Many lives were lost and continue to be lost in an unnecessary war and peace for the region seems far far off.
March 7, 2016 at 5:21 PM
I hate you.
Yes, Bush lied...
There was a possibility that Iraq had WMD. No one really knew for sure...
However the analysts I spoke with were convinced there were WMD...
March 7, 2016 at 5:21 PM
Cognitive dissonance rules. You postulate a lie and then proceed to disprove it. At most your "analysis" shows a self-serving mistake in judgement at many levels. Not a lie.
Read carefully. They knew from the inspectors before the war that there was no WMD. What was eventually found could have been located and removed without the war. Hussein did not want the US to march in and let the inspectors go anywhere once the war had been authorized.
They knew from the inspectors before the war that there was no WMD. What was eventually found could have been located and removed without the war.
March 7, 2016 at 9:01 PM
Do you not see the glaring inconsistency in those comments? If the inspectors "knew" before the war there were no WMDs, then how were WMDs found after the war?? I guess the inspectors decided to ignore and not report any "left over" WMDs?? Or maybe there could have easily been "current" WMDs because the "inspectors" were not even thorough enough to find the "leftover" ones?? Try to get your logic straight. Cognitive dissonance indeed.
Inspectors didnt ignore left over wmd's, they were told to say nothing about them when they were finally unearthed. It was common knowledge that Iraq did possess chemical and biological weapons. They were used several times in the 80's and 90's. What they didnt possess was a functioning chem/bio weapons program or a nuclear weapon program.
Inspectors didnt ignore left over wmd's, they were told to say nothing about them when they were finally unearthed.
March 8, 2016 at 9:07 AM
This makes no sense. What is your source for this claim? Who told UN inspectors not to talk about something that happened months or years after they completed their inspections? And, it is false to claim that all of the WMDs were "unearthed". At least 2400 nerve agent rockets were in storage at a former Republican Guard compound.
a) I didn't say UN inspectors
b) This is true, "It was common knowledge that Iraq did possess chemical and biological weapons. They were used several times in the 80's and 90's. What they didn't possess was a functioning chem/bio weapons program or a nuclear weapon program."
Do some research before you post next time.
Once the inspectors were free to go wherever they wanted whenever, they would have found the remaining weapons. These weapons would have been destroyed without a war.
Once the inspectors were free to go wherever they wanted whenever, they would have found the remaining weapons. These weapons would have been destroyed without a war.
March 8, 2016 at 11:54 AM
More nonsense. As if the inspectors would have ever been "free to go wherever they wanted whenever" if there were no war.
Hey, blog moderator!!! How was this thread ever allowed, or allowed to stay, on this blog??? Please get rid of it!
Hey, blog moderator!!! How was this thread ever allowed, or allowed to stay, on this blog??? Please get rid of it!
March 8, 2016 at 8:49 PM
Look, sometimes it is better to have at least one or two threads that are off topic to put all the extra stuff in, sort of like a trashcan on your computer, it helps to keep the other threads clean.
The conservative trolls end up on virtually every topic on this blog.
HeeHee, the liberals don't like their groupthink interrupted.
You obviously don't know the difference between liberals and cons. Liberals usually have a hard time coming to agreement on an issue. Cons march in lock step, critical thinking is discouraged.
Just look at the gop primary, the hole party is coming apart and why? Trump is the champion of liberal causes and the gop electorate doesn't care. They have been conditioned to do as they are told. Why do you think the gop elite are so nervous? Their minions are marching to a new leader and his views are mostly liberal. The elite are begging the electorate to use critical thinking skills where none exist.
That is group think.
Lovely that your world-view is so self-serving. Congratulations.
And liberals pander to every little sub-segment of our society except the real value creators for the country Wall Street. That's why Hillary won't release her transcripts.
Isn't if funny how truth has a liberal bias? Remember it was the same cons (politicians that should be in jail?) who demanded that LLNL and LANL be privatized. The con mantra: private industry does everything better. Just another scam to send more money to contractors like Bechtel. Same could be said of the Iraq war, but oh wait, that also got W elected for the first time in 2004.
The con mantra: private industry does everything better.
March 10, 2016 at 3:41 PM
The lib mantra: but oh wait, that also got W elected for the first time in 2004.
Yep, the world would be much better if Al Gore (the inventor of the internet) had been president.
If the rationale was a lie, then why did the Washington Times and NPR publish this story?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/15/356360949/pentagon-reportedly-hushed-up-chemical-weapons-finds-in-iraq
I think you need to read that article very, very closely.
March 10th 9:45
I would agree, we would have been better off with Gore.
Misdirection is an instrument of diplomacy. Like strategy and silence, they are used in yhe national interest. Do they lie to you, sweet child? Of course.
So.
1. Bush said we didnt know if Sadam restarted the nuclear wespons program thar they dismantled. We know our intelligence missed it completely for most of its existence.
2. Cheney said a bio wespons trailer existed long after it was conclusivly showm by US inspectors to be sethong else. He ignored the breifing. No one else paidvany attention to his ploy.
3. Chemic weapons WMD existed in abundance. Saddam used them against Iran and the Kurds.
These are the publically disclosed facts. You judge. IDC
Sigh... I thought that over two days without additional posts meant this thread was finally dying a well-deserved death. No such luck; there are still, apparently, people out there who believe their axes are insufficiently sharp. Completely irrelevant to the stated purpose of this blog, and booorrrringg.
Why are you here then?
To call out the booorrrringg people.
I would agree, we would have been better off with Gore.
March 11, 2016 at 7:09 AM
Immediately after 9/11 the country was saying glad it's Bush and not Gore.
Remember Al Gore flunked out of Vanderbilt law school and never finished. He's dumberer than Bush, well maybe not since his net worth >$100M.
Remember, Gore graduated cum laude from Harvard. He didn't flunk law school. He quit to run for political office. Your ignorance puts you in the same league as Bush. Fabricating facts to support a position, a gop tradition.
March 14, 2016 at 11:45 AM
Great start, correcting the record accurately. Throwing in a little of your own gratuitous bias, not so much.
It was Kerry who didn't do well like Bush in the Ivies.
And don't forget. Gore went to Vietnam. Bush stayed home, flew jets for ANG for a year and decided to quit even though he had more than a year left on his contract. Hmm.
March 14, 2016 at 7:37 PM
Totally debunked liberal garbage. Get over yourself.
Debunked? Still making things up I see.
In September 2004, Lawrence Korb, an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan, after reviewing the payroll records for Bush's last two years of service, concluded that they indicated that Bush did not fulfill his obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result.[
" At least 2400 nerve agent rockets were in storage at a former Republican Guard compound."
Have any of these ended up in the hands of ISIS ? One of Saddam's top chemical weapons experts was recently identified as an ISIS commander.
More stupidity. Read the article, then see if you still want to ask your ridiculous question. Hints: When were the rockets discovered and by whom? When did ISIS arise?
Trump's Junk in 2016!
We know little Marco likes it.
Trump's Junk in 2016!
March 15, 2016 at 1:15 PM
You are right, he is junk. (Refuse, garbage, ugly and smelly)
To blog posters: Please contribute more new subjects at the top of the blog so that this ridiculous, dreadful, completely irrelevant thread can disappear soon. Thank you!
To blog moderator: Please establish a rule for this blog that you will delete any political garbage not related to the blog purpose.
Hillary Lies
Trump Lies
TrusTed in 2016!
Right, have you ever had a good outcome from someone who says "trust me"??
ISIS over ran the main Iraqi chemical weapons facility and not all of the warheads had been removed. Looters were seen on cameras in the facility before the camera feeds were cut. Yes we should assume ISIS has gotten their hands on some of the weapons. We can only hope that they were so decayed and dangerous that ISIS is having difficulty using them.
ISIS has already used them. Pay attention.
Right, have you ever had a good outcome from someone who says "trust me"??
March 16, 2016 at 3:23 PM
Yes. Jesus.
It isn't clear the chemical weapons ISIS has used were from that stockpile. Pay attention to what is known and what isn't.
The "stockpile" was of nerve agent rockets. ISIS used mustard agent.
O'Reilly (FOX) was arguing with Trump recently that Bush, Chaney and Powell had gotten strong intelligence on the WMD programs in Iraq and believed that they were ongoing. So Bush did not lie, despite the facts on the ground after the US took over Iraq. O'Reilly claims that Saddam had spread the lie to his subordinates that the WMD programs were active. However, at the time I remember the press reporting that in fact the subordinates were faking out Saddam because they feared execution.
Well if it came from Faux News and Be'Guilley it must be true. Case closed.
March 17, 2016 at 8:23 AM
Prove Jesus is real.
March 16, 2016 at 7:33 PM
I have told you before and I'll tell you again. Do some research before you post.
March 16, 2016 at 8:29 AM
That's pretty funny.
March 15, 2016 at 2:38 PM
To troll
Quit looking at this thread if it bothers you. Look at the LANL threads instead.
Prove Jesus is real.
March 17, 2016 at 2:52 PM
The fact that you keep asking science questions about religion shows that you don't understand science or religion.
The fact that you keep asking religious questions about God shows that you don't understand God or religion. Only when you understand God will you understand the one true religion.
I am still waiting for proof the Jesus did and still does exist. There is not one shred of evidence the man existed (unless you believe the fraudulent shroud of Turin). Quit posting your opinions and show us hard evidence, facts, something that can be tested. That is science.
Quit posting your opinions and show us hard evidence, facts, something that can be tested. That is science.
March 17, 2016 at 7:36 PM
If you keep asking science questions about religion, you are just making noise, showing you are ignorant about both aspects of human experience. Hint: look up the concept of "falsification" as a determinant of applicability of a given question to science or religion. Guess what, they aren't remotely the same. Scientific reasoning and religious faith are completely separate and different and yet are entirely compatible within the broadest minds. Many excellent and famous scientists are and were highly religious. Is your little pea brain confused yet?
I think the phrase you are grasping for is "scientific method". Not sure what scientific reasoning is.
Hey, if you want to believe in fairy tales, esp, Yuri Keller, the bogey man be my guest. No intellectual curiosity is the definition of a pea brain in my universe.
Yay, only one more movement from the new post thread to make this one disappear off the end of the page! Good riddance!
yet it is the most popular thread on this dismal blog. you don't like it when people express themselves do you.
Post a Comment