Bush Defends Iraq Policy

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Michael
Clinton used the same "faulty" inteligence as justification to bomb and kill Iraqis.

Really? So our intel used to justify OIF was 4-5 years old? Holy crap! Did Congress know that when they voted to authorize force?!?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Michael
Clinton used the same "faulty" inteligence as justification to bomb and kill Iraqis.

You can try and ignore the truth, but what Bush was stating was the belief of the government of the USA.

He wasn't in power that long before the war and just about 100% of the previous administration was behind him in his decision to attack Iraq. Iraq had long been named as an important danger to the USA.

Look at the votes in the Congres and the Senate - those people have access to more intel than just what the President provides.

Since he was proved wrong about a major selling point for the war, Bush will have to face that fact at the polls.

Eventually Conjur will get over his blind hatred of anything related to Bush and think a little. Of course, eventually I will be dead.

I see more vidence of WMD than Conjur's ability to think.

Michael

Bush was stating the belief of the neocons in his administration based on the intelligence they had seen. He was not stating the belief of the Senate, who were not privy to the unvetted intelligence Feith and the DIA were using to base their cause for war. The Senate saw a final intelligence report just a few days before the vote.

And, that vote did not mean GO TO WAR NOW, BOYS!

That vote meant that Bush had the authorization to go to war only after diplomatic measures and inspections failed.

Inspections didn't fail. Bush pulled them out when it was becoming obvious WMDs were not going to be found. No WMDs meant no cause for war. Bush couldn't have that.

Also, the attacks Clinton made against Iraq (the cruise missile attack against the Iraqi Intelligence HQ) was based on the foiled assassination attempt of former Pres. Bush. Completely non-analogous situation.

The other attack launched was after Saddam began to refuse to allow the inspectors to do their work. The inspectors were pulled out of Iraq and cruise missiles were launched. The country was not invaded and occupied.

 

[Czar]

and also remember, before the war the Bush admin was all the time saying that they didnt want to release the real info that prooved Iraq's guilt because they were afraid to compromise sources

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Shuxclams

Kerry will do a better job just like the last democrat...

WooHoo! 8 years of prosperity and growth for everyone! Now that is good news


Personally I wouldn't count on it, if anything bank on higher taxes for everyone, less jobs but the good news is that there will be a bigger worse off lower middle class so most everyone will be in the same boat.














SHUX

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Shuxclams

Kerry will do a better job just like the last democrat...

WooHoo! 8 years of prosperity and growth for everyone! Now that is good news


Personally I wouldn't count on it, if anything bank on higher taxes for everyone, less jobs but the good news is that there will be a bigger worse off lower middle class so most everyone will be in the same boat.














SHUX

Well the last 4 years have been far from good.

 

[onelove]

Originally posted by: Czar
and also remember, before the war the Bush admin was all the time saying that they didnt want to release the real info that prooved Iraq's guilt because they were afraid to compromise sources

yes, lets please not forget this fact.

also not to be ignored is the slow progress of the inquiry regarding the apparent administration outing of Joe Wilson's wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame. That source didn't provide the findings to back up the claims. How is it so hard to see a cause-effect relationship here - who else had the motive and the information to do this? sorry to diverge, but this point relates to bogus claims of secrecy and the fact that we should be VERY wary of trusting this administration based on blind assurances.

 

[onelove]

double-tap

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Michael
Clinton used the same "faulty" inteligence as justification to bomb and kill Iraqis.

Really? So our intel used to justify OIF was 4-5 years old? Holy crap! Did Congress know that when they voted to authorize force?!?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Michael
Clinton used the same "faulty" inteligence as justification to bomb and kill Iraqis.

Really? So our intel used to justify OIF was 4-5 years old? Holy crap! Did Congress know that when they voted to authorize force?!?

Yeah!

Didn't you know that Clinton was secretly still using Chalabi and the INC as a source of intelligence 2 years after the CIA severed relations with them?

 

[Genx87]

War is too important to jump into for unknown reason

12 years of not complying with a ceasefire you signed that dealth with WMDs that you have used is not enough of a reason?

But still no evidence of a connection between Iraq and 9/11?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.

Is this any surprise to you? Cheney on meet the press the following Sunday after the attacks stated Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The Bush administration has never said Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. They have said Iraq has had some level of interaction with Al-Queada.

Clinton/Gore's statements were accurate at the time they were made based upon current intelligence and work performed by UNSCOM/UNMOVIC. They were made in 1998, not in 2002/2003 in a run-up to an invasion.

You do realize the UN was kicked out in 1998? You cant possibly tell us Saddam without supervision just decided to destroy his own WMD. Especially given the timeline from when he signed the ceasefire agreement and when we went to war again. His nation had to go through several weapons restatements due to people defecting or the UN finding something.

Kerry/Edwards' statements were based upon information supplied to them by the Bush administration, specifically, Wolfowitz/Feith and the DIA. Their votes were based upon receiving a final intelligence report just days before the vote to authorize the President to use force.

They see the same intelligence reports the administration sees.

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Powell used information known to be false, dubious, or misleading. Also, Powell and Rice even stated in 2001 that Saddam had no WMD programs and his military was in shambles. Go read the Iraq on the Record thread.

Pure opinion and only can be considered stretching the truth using todays knowledge 2 years ago.

WMDs were the ONLY reason which would have justified a pre-emptive invasion. The other items would not have garnered any type of authorization to use force and everyone knows it. Esp. Bush. That's why he's repeated the WMD exists lie over and over and over and....

Saddams refusal to comply with 687 was justification enough.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

War is too important to jump into for unknown reason

12 years of not complying with a ceasefire you signed that dealth with WMDs that you have used is not enough of a reason?

Inspectors were able to destroy enormous amounts of WMD materials and dismantle WMD programs up until 1998. In Kay's words, they were successful at scuttling Saddam's capabilities.

But still no evidence of a connection between Iraq and 9/11?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.

Is this any surprise to you? Cheney on meet the press the following Sunday after the attacks stated Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The Bush administration has never said Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. They have said Iraq has had some level of interaction with Al-Queada.

Then what have Cheney and Bush meant in their recent statements where they emphatically state there was a relationship (not just contacts or ties...but a working relationship) between Iraq and Al Qaeda? What did Bush mean when he said he "removed an ally of Al Qaeda" during his "Mission Accomplished" speech? What did this administration mean in the months leading up to the war with their non-stop implications equating Saddam with Al Qaeda and, hence, responsibility for the 9/11 attacks?

Clinton/Gore's statements were accurate at the time they were made based upon current intelligence and work performed by UNSCOM/UNMOVIC. They were made in 1998, not in 2002/2003 in a run-up to an invasion.

You do realize the UN was kicked out in 1998? You cant possibly tell us Saddam without supervision just decided to destroy his own WMD. Especially given the timeline from when he signed the ceasefire agreement and when we went to war again. His nation had to go through several weapons restatements due to people defecting or the UN finding something.

1) The UN inspectors were NOT kicked out in 1998. They were pulled by the UN as Clinton was about to launch cruise missile attacks. Stop spreading that lie.

2) See my first comment above.

Kerry/Edwards' statements were based upon information supplied to them by the Bush administration, specifically, Wolfowitz/Feith and the DIA. Their votes were based upon receiving a final intelligence report just days before the vote to authorize the President to use force.

They see the same intelligence reports the administration sees.

Proof for this? Kerry was no longer on the Senate Intelligence Committee. All Senators do not see the raw data the Bush administration saw. Wolfowitz/Feith were running their own little intelligence shop in the DIA.

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Powell used information known to be false, dubious, or misleading. Also, Powell and Rice even stated in 2001 that Saddam had no WMD programs and his military was in shambles. Go read the Iraq on the Record thread.

Pure opinion and only can be considered stretching the truth using todays knowledge 2 years ago.

NOT pure opinion.

Go read the Iraq on the Record thread. Note, especially, the methodology used in compiling the quotes.

WMDs were the ONLY reason which would have justified a pre-emptive invasion. The other items would not have garnered any type of authorization to use force and everyone knows it. Esp. Bush. That's why he's repeated the WMD exists lie over and over and over and....

Saddams refusal to comply with 687 was justification enough.

That may be the case but that was NOT the reason given for justification. Did you not see the quotes I've posted from Powell's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?

Powell emphatically stated that the only reason the President was requesting authorization to use force (not to immediately go to war, but to use force if necessary) was because of the WMD claims.