ShadowWar ShadowWar

Who lied to who about Iraq and WMD's?

Who lied to who about Iraq and WMD's?

Maybe Dems should look in the mirror first.

OK Let me get this straight.....

Some people accuse President Bush of lying about WMD's in Iraq.
They say he lied to the country.

But....

The CIA (as flawed as they are) told the President Iraq had WMD's

The British Intellegence Service told the President that Iraq had WMD's.

The Democrats said Iraq was a threat - Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean (D), appearing on "Face the Nation" in
September 2002, said, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.
" In February 2003, during an address at Drake University, Dean said, "I agree with President Bush -- he has said that
Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. (Hussein) is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his
neighbors, used chemical arms and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the
Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions.
And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of
mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace.
The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other
country. So I want to be clear. Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given."

Gen. Wesley Clark, before he became an anti-war Democratic presidential candidate, testified on Sept. 26, 2002, before
the House Armed Services Committee: "There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a
longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self-defense
. . . . Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if
necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. . . . When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United
Nations approval. . . . There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological
weapons. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet.
If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.

Former President Bill Clinton, more recently, visited Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso in October 2003.
The prime minister said, "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the
White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction
until the end of the Saddam regime."

John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee, said on Oct. 10, 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."

Leon E. Panetta (D) appearing on C-SPAN's Washington Journal this Monday morning ( 10-28-03 8:20 AM EST ) said that
he was in the White House and that President Clinton received the same intelligence information about the danger of Iraq's
WMD's as President Bush did. He believes that President Clinton did what he thought was best and that President Bush did
what he thought was best.

Democrat senator Bob Graham said, "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 a licit missile program to
develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Hillary Clinton said "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, and 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."

"Saddam's goal...is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." - Secretary of State Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who
has used them against his own people." - Senator Tom Dashle, 1998

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to
eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven
impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Former Vice President Al Gore, 2002

"I share this administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." - Richard Gephardt, September 2002

,br> "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who
has used them against his own people." - Senator Tom Dashle, 1998

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal
weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." - Senator Edward Kennedy, September 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some
stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build his chemical
and biological warfare capability. intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet
achieved nuclear capability." Senator Robert Byrd, October, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more
than two decades, Saddam Hussein sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that
he has chemical and biological weapons. He already used them against his neighbors and his own people and is trying to
build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets
closer to achieving that goal." Senator John Edwards, October 2002

"I am absolutely confident that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we could see the inspectors being
barred gaining entry into a warehouse for hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, April 2003

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately,
Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." - Barbara Boxer, November 2002

"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppresive regime...
He presents a particularly grievious threat because he is so consistantly 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." - Senator John Kerry, January, 2003

"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 deadlt arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat
to our security." Senator John Kerry, October 2003


If you say that they were misinformed, then wern't they misinformed by the same people that misinformed President Bush? Maybe the name callers should look in the mirror first, or maybe just check their own records and statements.
"
9,912 views 28 replies
Reply #27 Top
1) What do you disagree with on this point? 'no doubt' is the phrase used by Bush in his speech. Surely you accept this? Doubts were raised by the CIA on a number of issues. Most noticeably when they asked Bush to remove false information from his state of union address. He didn't. Do honestly beleive that there were no doubts?


You mean to tell me that Bush was told by the CIA that there was "doubt" abou tthe information, and that he was asked by the CIA to remove certain information from his speech, and he refused, knowing that the information was false? Show me where you can show Bush was told the information was false and he still refused to take it out of his speech. Please show me this in black and white.

3) This is obiously the hardest to argue. Is a suggestion of a link equal to 'allied'? I say no. May of the suggestions were later shown to be false. Is the fact that some Iraqi citizens were linked to Al Qaeda the same as saying Saddam was linked? Again I say no. Showing Iraqi agents working against the US is very different from showing a link between Saddam and terrorist allies. To deal with your points here1 - hearsay with no proof2 - known to be false3 - State politics and not terrorist allies (CIA assassinating people is not called terrorism)4 - Not talking about terrorism either5 - Again we are talking state politics. Close to terrorism but definitely not terrorist allies6 - Same as point 37 - Only point suggesting any link to terrorists, and a very tentative one at that. 2 US citizens were also arrested. So if you beleive Iraqis=Sadddam then Americans=Bush, so Bush is also linked to terrorist allies. You need to separate individuals from state, uless you have proof of a link or they are in some official capacity. At the very least you should apply the same logic to all cases.


We are not talking politics as you would have us believe, we are talking about terrorist. I quote from my previous post, " Pay special attention to the last one, "Eight Iraqis, tied to al-qaida arrested in Amman.." So what part of those was not true? Again don't let the facts get in the way of your point of view. I look forward to your facts, not your opinion." There has been established a clear connection, relationship, aquaintence, whatever term you want to play semantics with, between Iraq and Al-qaida. WHat part of that is missleading?

Again I will make it easy. SHOW ME A SINGLE DOCUMENT INSTANCE OF BUSH KNOWINGLY LYING ABOUT IRAQ. Not conjecture or other opinion, I want you to show everyone a FACT that proves this claim.
Reply #28 Top
ShadowWar,
you keep asking for facts and then ignoring them when supplied. You do this while being quite happy to take your statements as fact. That's not consistent.

You ask for facts on point 1. This was the State of the Nation address last January. I'm very surprised that you are unaware of this point. Bush was asked by the CIA to remove the claims of nuclear links in Niger. He did not. This is a fact. It's not conjecture. What more are you looking for here? A personal interview with Bush to ask him if it's true? Of course you won't get the truth. Initially the state department said that senior CIA officials had not seen the speech beforehand, then the CIA director said he had personally approved the speech and that Bush was unaware of any incorrectness in it, and finally it was verified that whitehouse staff had left the Niger connection in despite a request from CIA analysists to remove it. To quote from the Sen. Richard Durbin,

"The credibility of the president is on the line," he said. "We should be able to point to those people fully responsible for putting that misleading language in the State of the Union address. They should be held accountable, and they should be dismissed. Someone in the White House knew that the National Security Council had been briefed and told that this information is not accurate, and yet it was still included in the State of the Union address"

Why was an untruth known by the CIA, state department and vice presidents office was left in the state of the union address?

As to your arguement of point 3. Lets talk facts again. 8 Iraqi were arrested. 2 Americans were arrested. 6 others were arrested. All were linked (very weakly by the way) to Al Quaeda. Does this make their countries leaderships linked? Yes or no? If yes then BOTH Saddam and Bush were terrorist allies. All this proves is that sick individuals of many nationalities support terrorism. It does not link the countries. How can you state as fact that it does for Iraq but not for the US? Please provide proof of this.

You state that

There has been established a clear connection, relationship, aquaintence, whatever term you want to play semantics with, between Iraq and Al-qaida


Where? Please show me where this relationship has been shown. The 9/11 report itself suggests that no such link existed or was ever likely to exist. This is a major statement of fact without any proof and yet you use it as truth.

Paul.