Blair 'knew Iraq had no WMD'

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I doubt there's an honest person in here that at one time didn't believe Saddam had WMDs. Plenty can now claim that in hindsight, but hindsight doesn't form past policy.

Load.

Of.

Bullshit.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Yes, a majority of people fell for it.. but a supermajority of the U.S.(and the world) are imbeciles.. people unwilling to question anything... people who couldn't point out Iraq on a map, let alone know the history. How do you think Nazi Germany was able to be created? Through ignorance and imbecility of the general populace. It has been so since the beginning of time.

On the night of the first bombing, I remember just shaking my head... People are just so dumb.. and history continues repeating...

Yah know the problem with that argument?

I'd bet that when the majority agrees with you on an argument they are right and you feel validated and vindicated for being in that majority.

When that same majority doesn't agree with you on another topic they are embeciles.

Funny how that works.

Except, I was in the minority, and still am, despite these forums. If people actually believed what I believed, they couldn't in their right mind, re-elect George Bush. But they did.

I have no feelings of being validated for my and my friends predictions of Iraq. 2 million Iraqis displaced, 100s of thousands dead, 10s of thousands of our own dead, and a trillion dollars in debt for my son.... yeah, I feel great.

You refuse to believe me, and therefore, you make up some nonsensical story in your head about what "really" happened instead of what I told you. You don't need to believe me. You are more likely to keep hoping there is a "turnaround" because it is much harder to deal with a harsh reality and much easier to just hope for the best. It is also incredibly hard to admit to oneself that a mistake in judgment was made with such disastrous effects.

Suit yourself. Bury your head in the sand. Keep claiming no one could have predicted this and I'll see you in 10 years saying the same thing.

You do that. I'm sure in 10 years you'll be denying any progress in Iraq just like the nattering naybobs in here try to do now. It's getting harder and harder for them every day though. I don't doubt that some of them will be disappearing soon enough. It's been happening already. Good news is like Kryptonite to the anti-war crowd.

Wow, talk about delusional. Ok...

Talk about not learning from your mistakes... No wonder you have problems believing people didn't believe the propaganda the first time! You are still in denial!

If you aren't skeptical and cautious about good news, then you are just as gullible as the first time.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The biggest rebuttal against the whole 'Congress was duped' kind of argument is that the vast majority of those same Congress-critters that voted the AUMF in the past had regurgitated the very same claims that Bush did. If Bush had come along and told us all something different from the standard intel and government claims we'd been hearing for years then I'd have cause for suspicion. But they didn't. Everyone from Pelosi to Reid to Hillary and on down the line made grandiose claims abouts Saddam's WMDs in the past. Nor did they object while signing the AUMF. Trying to absolve Congress just doesn't fly.

Congress wasnt holistically "duped". They were ass/u/img that the executive was on the level. They didnt do their job, just like the media didnt do their job by questioning *everything* that came out of president shit-for-brains and his admin's mouth.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: yllus
Ah, you're right. That members of the U.S. Congress, UNMOVIC and other governments all thought that Iraq had WMD - that's not based on any evidence.

Your list is dwindling - you fail to note, of course how you exaggerate it already such as by listing members of congress whose beliefs were based on the administration's claims.

You also fail to note the main issue, that the UN inspectors were prevented from finding the truth by Bush, who broke his promises to let the inspectors do so.

Whose list? Mind sharing with me the larger list I've used which has now been reduced?

If Congress isn't there to do critical analysis of the President's claims and evidence, what the hell is it there for? What a lousy copout.

The inspectors were prevented from finding the truth by President Bush? Man, that's a new one. I guess a decade of frustrated inspections were just then about to be done successfully. 😕

Originally posted by: Skoorb
There was some ignorance and some deceit, but remember these people were not all privy to the same level of intelligence as Bush and Blair were. If Blair was of the opinion that he had severely trumped up the severity of Saddam's arsenal, there's no way Bush lacked this information.

President Bush and then-Prime Minister Blair hold the fault for taking their respective nations into battle for what turned out to be false premises. That is indisputable. As leaders, the final responsibility lay on their shoulders.

I don't have a problem with that, just the historical revisionism where the evidence pointing towards WMD suddenly never existed.

Congress had no reason (at the time) to not take the "evidence" at face value. It had been prepped by the WH, and that should have been good enough. There needs to be some level of trust in these things. Congress simply had no way to know how perfidious Bush was. Regarding what other countries thought... There is something known in the intelligence community as "echos". It's very much like the game where someone says a phrase to a person, who says it to the next etc until it comes back to the originator.

"Tommy is a liar" gets repeated and repeated. When it comes back to the originator it may or may not be as stated. So far so good. Now let's imagine you are the originator and you tell A who tells B etc. Let's say ten people participate in this besides yourself. You overhear what's being repeated, and the word gets back to you that Tommy is a liar. End of game, right? Not in this case. You now leave the room and proceed to tell others that you heard from ten other people that Tommy is a liar. You started the rumor, and maybe even believed it, but you cite as evidence the "knowledge" that others have as well. You haven't lied precisely have you? No. You were being quite honest in what you say, but are a deceitful bastard for using it as you have. Congrats. Your name is George W. Bush.

That's quite a leap, isn't it? Putting it all on the deceit of the President and members of his administration? But does this explain:

?The intelligence which the president shared with us was in line with what we saw in the White House??
- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 2003

How about in post-invasion times? One from the then-Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee Senator Bob Graham?

?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.?
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
? Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

Look, your reasoning is bogus. There is utterly no way that the White House (with the CIA being complicit) had the capability to deceive all of the U.S. Congress. I do believe they took many unknowing members of Congress from a state of "we're pretty sure" to "absolutely sure" with all the crap evidence they ended up touting, but this revisionism is something I won't let pass by quietly.

Also, LOL @ Craig234. The U.S. had allowed inspections to end... It had nothing to do with the inspectors being harassed and literally kicked out of the country. Your typical modus operandi... It's all the U.S.'s fault!

 

[FoBoT]

which part of "get bases on both sides of Iran" don't you people understand

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Yes, a majority of people fell for it.. but a supermajority of the U.S.(and the world) are imbeciles.. people unwilling to question anything... people who couldn't point out Iraq on a map, let alone know the history. How do you think Nazi Germany was able to be created? Through ignorance and imbecility of the general populace. It has been so since the beginning of time.

On the night of the first bombing, I remember just shaking my head... People are just so dumb.. and history continues repeating...

Yah know the problem with that argument?

I'd bet that when the majority agrees with you on an argument they are right and you feel validated and vindicated for being in that majority.

When that same majority doesn't agree with you on another topic they are embeciles.

Funny how that works.

Except, I was in the minority, and still am, despite these forums. If people actually believed what I believed, they couldn't in their right mind, re-elect George Bush. But they did.

I have no feelings of being validated for my and my friends predictions of Iraq. 2 million Iraqis displaced, 100s of thousands dead, 10s of thousands of our own dead, and a trillion dollars in debt for my son.... yeah, I feel great.

You refuse to believe me, and therefore, you make up some nonsensical story in your head about what "really" happened instead of what I told you. You don't need to believe me. You are more likely to keep hoping there is a "turnaround" because it is much harder to deal with a harsh reality and much easier to just hope for the best. It is also incredibly hard to admit to oneself that a mistake in judgment was made with such disastrous effects.

Suit yourself. Bury your head in the sand. Keep claiming no one could have predicted this and I'll see you in 10 years saying the same thing.

You do that. I'm sure in 10 years you'll be denying any progress in Iraq just like the nattering naybobs in here try to do now. It's getting harder and harder for them every day though. I don't doubt that some of them will be disappearing soon enough. It's been happening already. Good news is like Kryptonite to the anti-war crowd.

Wow, talk about delusional. Ok...

Talk about not learning from your mistakes... No wonder you have problems believing people didn't believe the propaganda the first time! You are still in denial!

If you aren't skeptical and cautious about good news, then you are just as gullible as the first time.

Case in point...

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Yes, a majority of people fell for it.. but a supermajority of the U.S.(and the world) are imbeciles.. people unwilling to question anything... people who couldn't point out Iraq on a map, let alone know the history. How do you think Nazi Germany was able to be created? Through ignorance and imbecility of the general populace. It has been so since the beginning of time.

On the night of the first bombing, I remember just shaking my head... People are just so dumb.. and history continues repeating...

Yah know the problem with that argument?

I'd bet that when the majority agrees with you on an argument they are right and you feel validated and vindicated for being in that majority.

When that same majority doesn't agree with you on another topic they are embeciles.

Funny how that works.

Except, I was in the minority, and still am, despite these forums. If people actually believed what I believed, they couldn't in their right mind, re-elect George Bush. But they did.

I have no feelings of being validated for my and my friends predictions of Iraq. 2 million Iraqis displaced, 100s of thousands dead, 10s of thousands of our own dead, and a trillion dollars in debt for my son.... yeah, I feel great.

You refuse to believe me, and therefore, you make up some nonsensical story in your head about what "really" happened instead of what I told you. You don't need to believe me. You are more likely to keep hoping there is a "turnaround" because it is much harder to deal with a harsh reality and much easier to just hope for the best. It is also incredibly hard to admit to oneself that a mistake in judgment was made with such disastrous effects.

Suit yourself. Bury your head in the sand. Keep claiming no one could have predicted this and I'll see you in 10 years saying the same thing.

You do that. I'm sure in 10 years you'll be denying any progress in Iraq just like the nattering naybobs in here try to do now. It's getting harder and harder for them every day though. I don't doubt that some of them will be disappearing soon enough. It's been happening already. Good news is like Kryptonite to the anti-war crowd.

Wow, talk about delusional. Ok...

Talk about not learning from your mistakes... No wonder you have problems believing people didn't believe the propaganda the first time! You are still in denial!

If you aren't skeptical and cautious about good news, then you are just as gullible as the first time.

Case in point...

You haven't made any point, bud.

 

[heyheybooboo]

It never ceases to amaze me the tons of BS the Cons shovel to defend the Bush Illegal Occupation of Iraq.

UNSCOM verifiably destroyed 90% of Saddam's WMD. Iraq unilaterally destroyed WMD. Iraq neither had the facilities nor the financial wherewithall to re-establish their WMD programs.

Iraq didn't throw the inspectors out in 1998 - we pulled them out so we could bomb the sh*t out of 'em - using intel from the CIA spys we planted in UNSCOM!

UNMOVIC had hundreds of inspectors in Iraq. Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Tenet, Rums-Failed and Wolfie are all complicit in the BS. They cherry-picked intelligence to suit their agenda. Curveball? Chalabi? Yellowcake? It's all crap.

The Bushit will be remembered for what it was. A completely unnecessary waste of life.

Bush. Lied.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: yllus
Ah, you're right. That members of the U.S. Congress, UNMOVIC and other governments all thought that Iraq had WMD - that's not based on any evidence.

Your list is dwindling - you fail to note, of course how you exaggerate it already such as by listing members of congress whose beliefs were based on the administration's claims.

You also fail to note the main issue, that the UN inspectors were prevented from finding the truth by Bush, who broke his promises to let the inspectors do so.

Whose list? Mind sharing with me the larger list I've used which has now been reduced?

If Congress isn't there to do critical analysis of the President's claims and evidence, what the hell is it there for? What a lousy copout.

The inspectors were prevented from finding the truth by President Bush? Man, that's a new one. I guess a decade of frustrated inspections were just then about to be done successfully. 😕

Originally posted by: Skoorb
There was some ignorance and some deceit, but remember these people were not all privy to the same level of intelligence as Bush and Blair were. If Blair was of the opinion that he had severely trumped up the severity of Saddam's arsenal, there's no way Bush lacked this information.

President Bush and then-Prime Minister Blair hold the fault for taking their respective nations into battle for what turned out to be false premises. That is indisputable. As leaders, the final responsibility lay on their shoulders.

I don't have a problem with that, just the historical revisionism where the evidence pointing towards WMD suddenly never existed.

Congress had no reason (at the time) to not take the "evidence" at face value. It had been prepped by the WH, and that should have been good enough. There needs to be some level of trust in these things. Congress simply had no way to know how perfidious Bush was. Regarding what other countries thought... There is something known in the intelligence community as "echos". It's very much like the game where someone says a phrase to a person, who says it to the next etc until it comes back to the originator.

"Tommy is a liar" gets repeated and repeated. When it comes back to the originator it may or may not be as stated. So far so good. Now let's imagine you are the originator and you tell A who tells B etc. Let's say ten people participate in this besides yourself. You overhear what's being repeated, and the word gets back to you that Tommy is a liar. End of game, right? Not in this case. You now leave the room and proceed to tell others that you heard from ten other people that Tommy is a liar. You started the rumor, and maybe even believed it, but you cite as evidence the "knowledge" that others have as well. You haven't lied precisely have you? No. You were being quite honest in what you say, but are a deceitful bastard for using it as you have. Congrats. Your name is George W. Bush.

That's quite a leap, isn't it? Putting it all on the deceit of the President and members of his administration? But does this explain:

?The intelligence which the president shared with us was in line with what we saw in the White House??
- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 2003

How about in post-invasion times? One from the then-Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee Senator Bob Graham?

?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.?
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
? Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

Look, your reasoning is bogus. There is utterly no way that the White House (with the CIA being complicit) had the capability to deceive all of the U.S. Congress. I do believe they took many unknowing members of Congress from a state of "we're pretty sure" to "absolutely sure" with all the crap evidence they ended up touting, but this revisionism is something I won't let pass by quietly.

Also, LOL @ Craig234. The U.S. had allowed inspections to end... It had nothing to do with the inspectors being harassed and literally kicked out of the country. Your typical modus operandi... It's all the U.S.'s fault!

Congress isn't off the hook by any means, but the intel didn't originate with Congress. It was handed to them. Why would they think they were deceived? President's don't do that (well, didn't). In any case rather than spending the effort to verify old information before starting a shooting war, they just went with it. No one could make a claim that a war was needed immediately. Why not? Congress isn't off the hook, but on the other hand Congress didn't send the troops over. They just rolled over and played dead.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I doubt there's an honest person in here that at one time didn't believe Saddam had WMDs. Plenty can now claim that in hindsight, but hindsight doesn't form past policy.

Load.

Of.

Bullshit.

That sums up your contributions quite well :laugh:

 

[Lemon law]

More snappy come back from Pabster. Complete with cackling smiley.

But where is your Tony Blair who played you bet your political life on GWB?

Where is the many country coalition that GWB went into Iraq with? Because most have wised up and gone home.

Where is the 90% support GWB used to have?

Are you willing to stay in Iraq for the 40-50 years palehorse74 tells you it will take? While money is poured down a bungled and mis managed rathole.

For answers to these and other exciting questions, stay tuned to the election coming up in less than a year. You can then be as obsolete as Tony Blair.

I just thought I would give you something to really smile about.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I doubt there's an honest person in here that at one time didn't believe Saddam had WMDs. Plenty can now claim that in hindsight, but hindsight doesn't form past policy.

Load.

Of.

Bullshit.

That sums up your contributions quite well :laugh:

You can't spell BDS without BS. 😉

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I doubt there's an honest person in here that at one time didn't believe Saddam had WMDs. Plenty can now claim that in hindsight, but hindsight doesn't form past policy.

Load.

Of.

Bullshit.

That sums up your contributions quite well :laugh:

You can't spell BDS without BS. 😉

I believed he probably had a small stash of chemical weapons, but nothing worth going to war for. A viable nuclear program? Na, that had been abandoned and no sign that anything was imminent. He was pretty much about as threatening as Egypt.

 

[ShinGouki]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
But where is your Tony Blair who played you bet your political life on GWB?
...
For answers to these and other exciting questions, stay tuned to the election coming up in less than a year. You can then be as obsolete as Tony Blair.

Um just so you know Tony Blair didn't leave because of the Iraq war, he was only ever really meant to stand for two terms then hand over to Gordon Brown. He actually stayed longer than was expected.

Despite unpopularity over the war he still could have quite easily won another election against the rather useless tories. David Cameron is after all just an second rate Tony Blair clone anyway. Other than the war Tony's actually been pretty popular over the last ten years. Not defending him by the way just think it's better to know that he left of his own accord, he wasn't pushed out despite what the tabloids would sometimes have you believe.

 

[colonel]

Everybody knew WMD was a big lie to push defence stocks and turned the whole country in a big occupation, unfortunately Congress generously provided the blank cheque for a horrible reverse in America history.