Gore Lied, People Died!

[Coyote]

I think Bush and the administration were careful not to "lie" they chose to represent an opinion as fact. and opinion that was not a majority amongst the intelligence community.

True...but they lied through trickery and ommission, it still as vile as a straight out lie since the intent was to decieve....good post btw

 

[jb_1430]

major[/B] link between 9/11 and Iraq?

Nonsense.

On Sept. 13, 2001, a Time/CNN poll found that 78 percent suspected Hussein's involvement --

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A32862-2003Sep5

and the percentage went nowhere but down after that. Or is it your complaint the administration waged a war of propaganda, even though it had no effect whatsoever? MARK

 

[Justinian]

It's significant for a couple of reasons.

(1) To show how this isn't "George Bush's War" as many on the left are fond of calling it.

(2) President Bush didn't "lie" about anything. EVERYONE thought that Saddam was a despot who needed to be removed, was supporting terrorism, and was developing nukes (he'd already displayed his willingness to use WMDs in the Iran-Iraq War).

(3) Serve as a reminder of the dishonesty and hypocrisy of all of the self-serving liberals who are on record saying that we needed to go into Iraq before 2003 and they are all now saying that Bush misled the public into this war.

Very true such as the old old saying, "The Mob is fickle"

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

Nonsense.



and the percentage went nowhere but down after that. Or is it your complaint the administration waged a war of propaganda, even though it had no effect whatsoever? MARK

There are many fronts to a war of propaganda. If you don't think propaganda is used by the United States Government on all issues you're kool aid drinking.

 

[jb_1430]

There are many fronts to a war of propaganda. If you don't think propaganda is used by the United States Government on all issues you're kool aid drinking.

????Cant imagine what I said that any rational person could interpret as saying that I "don't think propaganda is used by the United States Government"? MARK

 

[USMC the Almighty]

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks. - Bush 2003 after the invasion
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/18/iraq/main584234.shtml

What does this prove? "We have no evidence that Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks." So what? That says nothing about his links to al Qaeda which was involved with the 9/11 attacks.

Is it not true that the administration waged a war of propaganda to convince the public that there was a major link between 9/11 and Iraq?

I don't recall. Convince me.

The intelligence you speak of is cooked. plain and simple. Whether it was Douglas Feith at State or Cheney himself. The plain truth is that there was intelligence that said their were links, and there was intelligence that said he had nukes. It's the rest of the truth that gets left out. There was just as much if not 10x as much intelligence to the contrary. and in the Bush administration it's the intelligence that fits the goal that is used.

This doesn't make any sense. How can you have evidence that Saddam was not involved with terrorists at the same time you have evidence that he was?

The intelligence was cherry picked to justify a philosophy, a policy, and agenda. That's the truth.

You can't just declare "that's the truth" without any kind of evidence. What was this "agenda" or "policy" exactly?

...and opinion that was not a majority amongst the intelligence community.

Sure it was. EVERYONE thought that Saddam was developing nukes.

 

[Napoleon]

Secondly, there is a difference between being wrong and lying. All the intelligence said that there was a link and that Saddam had nukes, so he acted on it. If it had been proved wrong, then he was wrong. That doesn't mean he lied.

The Bush Administration sought out the most unreliable sources imaginable and paid them to say what they wanted to hear. Ahmed Chalabi, a convicted fraudster and a source which was widely known within the intelligence community to be extremely unreliable, was paid more per month than the Vice President of the United States makes in an entire year and was given a cushy government position, despite his overwhelming unpopularity among the Iraqi people, in exchange for services rendered. Then of course there's Curveball. A source which the German government repeatedly told the CIA and FBI was "crazy", a "fabricator", a "drunk", and that nothing he said could be verified. Yet EVERYTHING he said was presented as undeniable fact by the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration lied.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

When you have the General of the Iraqi Air Force saying that Saddam had nukes (and moved them to Syria), I think you've got a right to act on that.

 

[Napoleon]

When you have the General of the Iraqi Air Force saying that Saddam had nukes (and moved them to Syria), I think you've got a right to act on that.

Yes, isn't it interesting that a man which had been exiled from Iraq since 1991 claims to know all of the juicy details about what Saddam's regime was doing in the 12 years leading up to the Iraq War. Mr. Sada has no clue what he's talking about and hasn't ever provided any evidence to support his claims which are in direct contradiction with the information retrieved both before and after Saddam's regime was toppled. The "captains of the Iraqi airway" from which he claimed to have received his information never materialized either and he has yet to provided names.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Yes, isn't it interesting that a man which had been exiled from Iraq since 1991 claims to know all of the juicy details about what Saddam's regime was doing in the 12 years leading up to the Iraq War.

No.

Mr. Sada has no clue what he's talking about and hasn't ever provided any evidence to support his claims which are in direct contradiction with the information retrieved both before and after Saddam's regime was toppled.

Direct contradiction to what information retrieved? We know he had WMDs because he used them and we found leftovers, but the real question is whether he had nukes or he stopped developing them after Israel took out his nuclear reaction back in '81.

The "captains of the Iraqi airway" from which he claimed to have received his information never materialized either and he has yet to provided names.

What does this prove? There were plenty of people who made similar claims. And even if these do come out to be false, it doesn't mean Bush lied.

 

[Napoleon]

Direct contradiction to what information retrieved?

Haven't you read the final report of the ISG or the Addenda?

We know he had WMDs because he used them and we found leftovers, but the real question is whether he had nukes or he stopped developing them after Israel took out his nuclear reaction back in '81.

We know he had WMDs until 1991 but all evidence points to the fact that they were destroyed. We know he had a limited capability to produce them, at least in comparison to his capability prior to 1991, but that he didn't because he was waiting for sanctions to be lifted and that the dual-use materials, which were not banned by sanctions, were, in some cases, being used for legitimate purposes. We know that his regime had neither the intellectual or material capability to produce nuclear weapons for many years. It's all in the ISG report.

What does this prove?

Nothing and thats the point. Mr. Sada's allegations prove nothing. He hasn't provided anyone with any evidence to support his claims or the names of his alleged contacts. This discussion is irrelevant anyway since Mr. Sada didn't even start making such claims until 2006.

There were plenty of people who made similar claims.

Such as?

And even if these do come out to be false, it doesn't mean Bush lied.

Never said it did.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Haven't you read the final report of the ISG or the Addenda?

No.

We know he had WMDs until 1991 but all evidence points to the fact that they were destroyed.

That's not true. As late as last June we were still uncovering WMD stockpiles in Iraq.

We know he had a limited capability to produce them, at least in comparison to his capability prior to 1991, but that he didn't because he was waiting for sanctions to be lifted and that the dual-use materials, which were not banned by sanctions, were, in some cases, being used for legitimate purposes. We know that his regime had neither the intellectual or material capability to produce nuclear weapons for many years. It's all in the ISG report.

They were very close to having nuclear weapons in 1981 thanks to French scientists at the Osirak reactor so you're wrong about them not having the capabilities to produce nukes.

Nothing and thats the point. Mr. Sada's allegations prove nothing. He hasn't provided anyone with any evidence to support his claims or the names of his alleged contacts. This discussion is irrelevant anyway since Mr. Sada didn't even start making such claims until 2006.

Such as?

In addition to Iraqi Gen. Georges Sada making thee claims, you have former Israeli PM Ariel Sharon, General Yaalon (chief of staff of the IDF), Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti (southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia), John A. Shaw (Deputy Undersecretary of Defense), weapons inspector David Kay, and I'm sure there are others.

 

[Coyote]

That's not true. As late as last June we were still uncovering WMD stockpiles in Iraq.

What WMD stockpiles?

 

[Coyote]

We're still uncovering stockpiles of old WMD's left over from WW2...

 

[USMC the Almighty]

What WMD stockpiles?

The ones they released knowledge of last June...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200606/NAT20060621e.html
http://www.mediaresearch.org/press/2006/press20060623.asp