This is my personal view and comments on the issues and events that I feel a need to talk about or express my view. You don't have to agree, but lets carry on a adult, discussion and maybe you will see it the right way, mine. ;)
Maybe Dems should look in the mirror first.
Published on August 2, 2004 By ShadowWar In Politics
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.
"

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Aug 05, 2004
more lies, but important ones as Bush knew at the time they were lies. Bush knew there were doubts about the intelligence. He knew links to terrorist organizations were untrue. He knew countries like France insisted that no WMD evidence existed. These are the lies he is solely responsible for.


Your joking right? I want you to put aside your haltered of Bush for a second and think like a logical, intelligent human being. Do you honestly think that Bush knew the information was false? If so what do you base your conclusions on? The links to Terrorist Organizations has been CONFIRMED by the 9/11 Commission. The reports of WMD's can be confirmed by the dead bodies of Iraqis laying in their own streets after being gassed by their own government. Read the report. Why would the President take America to war with Iraq if not for the reasons he quoted? Oil? Please we get less oil from Iraq then we do from many of our other suppliers. For revenge? Please don't belittle the man that much, he knows that revenge at the expense of American lives in war is not revenge, its stupidity. So why did he go to war, when all else fails, take things at face value.

Look at the facts not the suppositions, look at the information on its face value. Read the 9/11 report. It was written by people who know a lot more about this situation then either you or I do. Stop and put aside partisanship and look at what we need here. A strong defense against the terrorist and someone who is willing to act on what you have. Like the people that criticize the President now for releasing the information on these new terrorist threats. Some say its OLD information. Of course SOME of it is, that’s called good planning. 9/11 was years in the making, What people fail to do is look at all the new information, some as recently updated as recently as Jan 2004. (7 moths for those that can't count) But all you hear is OLD, because that’s what the anti-Bush people want you to hear. If he had not released the information, and the terrorist had or do attack those targets, again he would be vilified for not having acted. The 9/11 Commission recommend we take actions and take them NOW. OK he is, now people want something else? You can not fight a war on Terrorism re-actively and hope to win, you must fight it Pro-actively. The terrorist do not understand diplomacy and peaceful talk, they BLOW THEMSELVES UP to kill a few of what they see as the enemy. You must fight force with a bigger overwhelming force, you must be ready to be as ruthless and violent as the terrorist is or you are going to lose. Does that mean you lower yourself to their standards, no, but you must be willing to fight, and God forbid, if necessary die for what your country stands for. If we took all the energy we are expending now fighting among ourselves with words and put it into planning and actions to make our country safer we would and could make ourselves much safer than we are right now. DO I like how this war has turned out, not really, would I like us to get out? No not until we finish what we started. Unity not division strengthens the fight against these terrorist.
on Aug 05, 2004
There are many facts that are conveniently overlooked in this debate as it rages across this great country of ours.

1. The Clinton Administration passed on intelligence that Iraq was in possession of WMD's, and that terrorist organizations were operating in Iraq with Saddam's full knowledge and support long before Bush asked the CIA to verify this intelligence.

2. WMD's have been found in Iraq, and more are found as our soldiers search the desrts between Baghdad and Syria. WMD's have been found buried in those sands. (Current intelligence from more countries than just the US have suggested that many WMD's were shipped into Syria before the war.)

3. France has shouted on many occassions that what we did was illegal, yet we had UN resolutions that stated military actions would be taken if Iraq did not comply with the Cease-Fire Agreement that effectively ended the first Persian Gulf War. Now the question really is why did France and Germany scream so loudly about the actions of the US, UK, Australia, as well as other countries? I think it is pretty "coincidental" that evidence was found that both France and Germany had gone behind the backs of the UN and broke sanctions against Iraq by buying oil directly from Saddam in return for military technology, not to mention the fact that France did sell Iraq weapon's grade plutonium, not energy grade plutonium.

4. Saddam slaughtered thousands of his own people. How would you like it if Bush decided that anyone who disagreed with his policies was to be inprisoned, or better yet shot?

5. Terrorist organizations have trained in Iraq openly. It has also been PROVEN that Saddam gave these organizations funding.

These are FACTS that can not be ignored, yet many people do so that they can justify their position that Bush lied to us. There are no FACTS that support that allegation.

As a veteran of the US Army, I applaud Bush for doing what was right. It is the duty of the strong to stand up for the weak and stand up for what is right. I for one would rather have taken a preemptive strike than sit around waiting for another 9/11 incident, no matter on whose soil it occurs. Eventually Iraq would have taken action against someone, or funded a terrorist organization to do so. It's funny how people who so strongly speak out against the war in Iraq, that are so fully allowed to do so because of our freedom, believe that other people do not have the right to freedom from oppression and tyrany. They might as well speak out against Lincoln, and call him a tyranical oppressive president who lied to Americans in a time of crisis.
on Aug 06, 2004
Shadowwar,
please stop the 'anti Bush' rubbish. Your opening sentence in your reply is insulting and does nothing to enhance your arguement. Must you resort to personal attacks? I don't care what reasons Bush went to war for. They are not part of your article. Your article is about lies and I'm highlighting three that Bush definitely knowingly told. I supported the war and I still supprot the war. Doesn't change the fact that some lies were told by Bush despite him knowing they were lies.

I've highlighted 3 points that Bush lied on.

1)
no doubt
This was false. There were doubts raised by the CIA. Bush chose to not only ignore them but to tell the American people that no doubts actually existed. Ignoring the doubts is something that as head of state he could do. It was his decision after all. Telling people that no doubts existed is different though. That's misleading and a clear lie.

2)
no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed
This was also false. France had made very clear that it objected to the US led war because it believed that the sanctions were working and that Saddam was disarmed. Bush knew this, but was willing to play on and fan US hatred of France so that people did not realise the importance. France did claim that Iraq had disarmed. France claimed that they had seen NO proof of current WMD. Therefore another clear lie.

3)
and his terrorist allies
Yet another false statement. Saddam was not 'allied' with any terrorist organistation. No proof exists. Indeed your vaulted 9/11 report (4 whole pages of which are dedicate to Iraq - out of 567) states that only ancedotal evidence exists. Bush didn't state that Saddam may be linked to some terrorists, he stated that Saddam was allied to them. A very clear lie.

So Shadowwar, please read the 9/11 report yourself. It's about 9/11 and not Iraq. Indeed it clearly shows that no firm link between Iraq and terrorists was ever made and that the admionistration felt that Saddam and Al Qaeda would not work together. Bush told lies. Face the facts.

Paul.
on Aug 06, 2004
1) no doubt This was false. There were doubts raised by the CIA. Bush chose to not only ignore them but to tell the American people that no doubts actually existed. Ignoring the doubts is something that as head of state he could do. It was his decision after all. Telling people that no doubts existed is different though. That's misleading and a clear lie.


Show me where you get your proof for this please.

2) no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmedThis was also false. France had made very clear that it objected to the US led war because it believed that the sanctions were working and that Saddam was disarmed. Bush knew this, but was willing to play on and fan US hatred of France so that people did not realise the importance. France did claim that Iraq had disarmed. France claimed that they had seen NO proof of current WMD. Therefore another clear lie.


Again I ask show me the proof of this please.

3) and his terrorist allies Yet another false statement. Saddam was not 'allied' with any terrorist organistation. No proof exists. Indeed your vaulted 9/11 report (4 whole pages of which are dedicate to Iraq - out of 567) states that only ancedotal evidence exists. Bush didn't state that Saddam may be linked to some terrorists, he stated that Saddam was allied to them. A very clear lie.


Ahhh how about these qotes from the 9/11 report that I HAVE read several times and have written articles on parts of it.
1.
DCI Tenet testified that “Atta may also have traveled outside of the U.S. in early April 2001 to meet an Iraqi intelligence
officer, although we are still working to [page 144] corroborate this.”
2.
In February 1999, the Intelligence Community obtained information that Iraq had formed
a suicide pilot unit that it planned to use against British and U.S. forces in the Persian
Gulf. The CIA commented that this was highly unlikely and probably disinformation.
3.
Mr. Clarke has testified that, when the Clinton Administration came into office, “the
furthest thing from [its] mind in terms of the policy agenda was terrorism.” This quickly ended
with Mir Amal Kansi’s murder of two CIA employees outside agency Headquarters shortly after
President Clinton’s inauguration. That event, plus the Iraqi attempt to assassinate former
President Bush in 1993
4.
Jan/Feb. CTC thwarts Iraqi agents’ plans
worldwide.
5.
18-19 Jan. Iraqi agents planted bombs at the
U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia’s residence
and at the USIS library in Manila.
6.
14 Apr. Iraqi Intelligence Service
attempt to assassinate former
President Bush in Kuwait thwarted.
7.
24 Jun. Eight Iraqis tied to al-Qaida
arrested in Amman based on tip
8.Oct 8. State Department designates
Al Qaeda a foreign terrorist
organization. Current state
sponsors of terrorism: Iran, Iraq,
Libya, Syria, Sudan, North Korea,
Cuba.

OK those are direct quotes (cpy and paste) from the 9/11 report. 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. BTW I found at least 15 references to Iraq, on that many different pages. Don't quote numbers or facts unless they are true. And it not "my" vaulted report, its the Congress's report by Dems and Repubs. So are they lying also?
on Aug 06, 2004
GWB and the neocons were determined for regime change in Iraq before 9/11, no matter who agreed or disagreed with them.


If, by neocons, you mean Bill Clinton, you are right.

The Bill Clinton Administration changed the policy on Iraq to "Regime Changed."
on Aug 06, 2004
This was also false. France had made very clear that it objected to the US led war because it believed that the sanctions were working and that Saddam was disarmed. Bush knew this, but was willing to play on and fan US hatred of France so that people did not realise the importance. France did claim that Iraq had disarmed. France claimed that they had seen NO proof of current WMD. Therefore another clear lie.


Of course France believed the sactions were working... The food for oil program was lining the wallet of France. The sactions were working absolutely, possitively, brilliant in the eyes of the French.
on Aug 06, 2004
No matter how you slice it, you can't convince any good-thinking person that an illegal and preemptive war against Iraq was justified.


Speaking of illegal... how about this:

John Kerry - April 18th, Meet the Press, 1971
"Yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare."
on Aug 09, 2004
ShadowWar,
in answer to your post,

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?

2) French president Chiraz stated on US television that he had seen NO information that Iraq had WMD. This was the whole reason France said it would veto resolution 1442. He saw no proof of WMD and therefore beleive Iraq was disarmed. I don't understand how you disagree with this?

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 here
1 - hearsay with no proof
2 - known to be false
3 - State politics and not terrorist allies (CIA assassinating people is not called terrorism)
4 - Not talking about terrorism either
5 - Again we are talking state politics. Close to terrorism but definitely not terrorist allies
6 - Same as point 3
7 - 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.

So my 3 points on which Bush knowingly lied still stand. Should you still feel they are incorrect in any way then please do provide your reasons.

Paul.
on Aug 09, 2004
Ignorance is Blix,
you are perpetrating a myth here. How much money was France getting from the Oil for food programme? How many French individuals had contracts to supply Iraq with food? Do you know?
Well the answer is that France had 9 out of over 270 contracts, amounting to a grand total in value of almost 33 million dollars, giving a profit somewhere around 8 million dollars. So out of the 2 billion dollars that may have been skimmed off the program French individuals (not the government) may have got 10 million. And before you point out that some of those 9 individuals included former ambassadors, it should be noted that many of the named individuals on the list turned out to be fake names used as fronts.

Bit of a pathetic take if they were really trying to milk it.

Now if you had pointed to Russia, Eqypt, or Saudi Arabia then you may have had a point. But not France.

Paul.
on Aug 10, 2004
I have to admit this is not a bad effort. However I am still opposed to the war on Iraq, whether the Democrats always have been or not. I don't believe that the Governments haven't deliberately interfered with the intelligence agencies. I do believe it was pretty clear from Powell's speech to the UN that he was distorting and manipulating the information he had obtained from those agencies and I do believe that he and the Republicans misled the entire world, including the Democrat Party in an attempt to convince us we should go to war. I think many Republicans are now too stubborn to admit they were fooled.
on Aug 10, 2004
Be gratefukl that Saddam has gone. I hope they get Iran next.
on Aug 12, 2004
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.
on Aug 16, 2004
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.
2 Pages1 2