Bush's Statements on Iraq and WMD

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Here are some of the statements made by George Bush during his rush to war. No where does he qualify any statement with the word "program." His statements are unqualified claims of Iraq's possession of and the imminent threat posed to the US by their WMD.

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations Address
September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio Address
October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

These claims are quite clear. Nowhere does Bush claim Iraq merely has WMD programs, he claims quite clearly Iraq POSSESSES WMD and is a threat to the USA.

What possible defence can Bush make now for these statements? What defence does Bush have now for his rush to war? The loss of life? Destroying Iraq? Wasting billions of dollars?
 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
Liberation. Of course that takes time. Things are really messed up right now, but in the big picture I believe that Iraq will be better off in most aspects in 5-10 years. I also think the weapons were probably there, either will find them, or they've already gotten into the wrong hands and we'll find them in the worst way. I think that the US really over-estimated the weapons, but nevertheless I think something was there. If they weren't then I would be asking why Hussein cooperated so poorly. Why was he so reluctant? He was given every opportunity to comply. His chances didn't start last November. If intelligence was concocted then we got some serious issues, but if intelligence was mixed up, blundered, tripped over, or even over-estimated, we can only hope for the best now: Recover what weapons/materials we can and help build a new Iraq (which is what is happening right now). Hussein destroyed Iraq years ago, we just shuffled his mess around a little so we can start putting the pieces back together.

You can either blame Bush, the driver of a car hell-bent on getting to his destination. Or you can blame Hussein, the one pushing his people in front of the moving car. If someone is pushing people into traffic, do you blame the pusher or the driver. You can blame them both. The driver should've been more aware and driven slower, and a little more carefully, but the blood is on the hands of the Pusher as far as I am concerned.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,803
6,360
126
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
Liberation. Of course that takes time. Things are really messed up right now, but in the big picture I believe that Iraq will be better off in most aspects in 5-10 years. I also think the weapons were probably there, either will find them, or they've already gotten into the wrong hands and we'll find them in the worst way. I think that the US really over-estimated the weapons, but nevertheless I think something was there. If they weren't then I would be asking why Hussein cooperated so poorly. Why was he so reluctant? He was given every opportunity to comply. His chances didn't start last November. If intelligence was concocted then we got some serious issues, but if intelligence was mixed up, blundered, tripped over, or even over-estimated, we can only hope for the best now: Recover what weapons/materials we can and help build a new Iraq (which is what is happening right now). Hussein destroyed Iraq years ago, we just shuffled his mess around a little so we can start putting the pieces back together.

You can either blame Bush, the driver of a car hell-bent on getting to his destination. Or you can blame Hussein, the one pushing his people in front of the moving car. If someone is pushing people into traffic, do you blame the pusher or the driver. You can blame them both. The driver should've been more aware and driven slower, and a little more carefully, but the blood is on the hands of the Pusher as far as I am concerned.

rolleye.gif
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Saddam was in trouble whether he complied or not. If he did comply (i.e. tell the world that his military capablility was a weak as it really was), he was a sitting target for local insurgents and neighboring countries (very immediate and real threat). If he did not comply he was a target for American "Justice". The later probably sounded better to him since he has depended on the temperance of the UN for quite a while now.
The only thing that I don't get is how come our intelligence marked Iraq as such a threat when Saddam had no defense to put up (blending the military in with locals is a pretty desperate act).
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
Liberation. Of course that takes time. Things are really messed up right now, but in the big picture I believe that Iraq will be better off in most aspects in 5-10 years. I also think the weapons were probably there, either will find them, or they've already gotten into the wrong hands and we'll find them in the worst way. I think that the US really over-estimated the weapons, but nevertheless I think something was there. If they weren't then I would be asking why Hussein cooperated so poorly. Why was he so reluctant? He was given every opportunity to comply. His chances didn't start last November. If intelligence was concocted then we got some serious issues, but if intelligence was mixed up, blundered, tripped over, or even over-estimated, we can only hope for the best now: Recover what weapons/materials we can and help build a new Iraq (which is what is happening right now). Hussein destroyed Iraq years ago, we just shuffled his mess around a little so we can start putting the pieces back together.

You can either blame Bush, the driver of a car hell-bent on getting to his destination. Or you can blame Hussein, the one pushing his people in front of the moving car. If someone is pushing people into traffic, do you blame the pusher or the driver. You can blame them both. The driver should've been more aware and driven slower, and a little more carefully, but the blood is on the hands of the Pusher as far as I am concerned.

The point is: What did Bush know and when did he know it?

Did Bush lie about Iraq's WMD and the threat they posed to the USA?

If so an independent prosecutor needs to investigate. We aren't talking about people being pushed into traffic here. We are talking about a sitting American president lying about national security issues to rush into a war in pursuit of his personal agenda. It's time to get to the bottom of this. Bush made some VERY SPECIFIC statements that it turns out misled the American people and cost the lives of hundreds of our troops as well as thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. Not to mention the destruction of Iraq, the billion dollars a month it is costing to keep our troops there and the billions more it will cost to clean up this (now it appears) unecessary mess.

Add to that the damage Bush has done to America's credibility and our relationships with our allies.

This behavior demands a full investigation into the lies Bush told the American people and the world.
 

Wag

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
8,288
8
81
Ah come on. No matter how you feel about Bushie, you must realize that nothing will happen to him. He will claim ignorance.

The real question is who the fall guys are going to be?
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Originally posted by: Wag
Ah come on. No matter how you feel about Bushie, you must realize that nothing will happen to him. He will claim ignorance.

The real question is who the fall guys are going to be?

Tenet, the admin has had him picked before this war even started. That's why he was at the UN 'lending his credibility' to Powell's report. The question is if he'll fall quietly or not.
 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
Liberation. Of course that takes time. Things are really messed up right now, but in the big picture I believe that Iraq will be better off in most aspects in 5-10 years. I also think the weapons were probably there, either will find them, or they've already gotten into the wrong hands and we'll find them in the worst way. I think that the US really over-estimated the weapons, but nevertheless I think something was there. If they weren't then I would be asking why Hussein cooperated so poorly. Why was he so reluctant? He was given every opportunity to comply. His chances didn't start last November. If intelligence was concocted then we got some serious issues, but if intelligence was mixed up, blundered, tripped over, or even over-estimated, we can only hope for the best now: Recover what weapons/materials we can and help build a new Iraq (which is what is happening right now). Hussein destroyed Iraq years ago, we just shuffled his mess around a little so we can start putting the pieces back together.

You can either blame Bush, the driver of a car hell-bent on getting to his destination. Or you can blame Hussein, the one pushing his people in front of the moving car. If someone is pushing people into traffic, do you blame the pusher or the driver. You can blame them both. The driver should've been more aware and driven slower, and a little more carefully, but the blood is on the hands of the Pusher as far as I am concerned.

rolleye.gif

rolleye.gif
 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
BOBDN you can be the independent investigator. Good luck trying to figure out what Bush knew and when he knew it. Those who trust Bush or like Bush will just say he made a mistake and those that dislike Bush will say he lied. The only justice you'll get if you hate Bush will be an election. Bush is never going to be brought up on war crimes or impeached, wrong or right that isn't going to happen, unless you can get him to lie under oath about something else. :p

The upsetting thing for many is that this war didn't go nearly as bad as some people wanted it to and its going to be a hard sell to convince any conservatives of that. The left isn't going anywhere by chasing this, because most Americans don't feel that the war was an international tragedy.

I'll spend my time hoping that Iraq is better off, others can spend time hoping the situation gets worse so we'll elect a democrat next time.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
BOBDN you can be the independent investigator. Good luck trying to figure out what Bush knew and when he knew it. Those who trust Bush or like Bush will just say he made a mistake and those that dislike Bush will say he lied. The only justice you'll get if you hate Bush will be an election. Bush is never going to be brought up on war crimes or impeached, wrong or right that isn't going to happen, unless you can get him to lie under oath about something else. :p

The upsetting thing for many is that this war didn't go nearly as bad as some people wanted it to and its going to be a hard sell to convince any conservatives of that. The left isn't going anywhere by chasing this, because most Americans don't feel that the war was an international tragedy.

I'll spend my time hoping that Iraq is better off, others can spend time hoping the situation gets worse so we'll elect a democrat next time.

How can you twist the president lying to the nation to start a war into people hoping the war wouldn't go well or hoping the situation gets worse?

Your completely biased argument leaves out a few small facts. The USA attacked another nation on Bush's word that they had WMD and were prepared to use it against us at any moment. Don't you realise what the result of this type of leadership is for our nation? When a leader can stand in front of his nation and trick them into war then in front of the whole world be exposed for his lie the repercussions are unavoidable. Bush set out by declaring other nations the "axis of evil" then through his actions made our nation evil.

I know Americans will have a hard time seeing our nation in that light, but try to see this situation through the eyes of the rest of the world. We started the war over WMD and an imminent threat to our country. Now it is apparent there was no threat. We have invaded and destroyed another nation under false pretences. How will we be judged by history?
 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
BOBDN you can be the independent investigator. Good luck trying to figure out what Bush knew and when he knew it. Those who trust Bush or like Bush will just say he made a mistake and those that dislike Bush will say he lied. The only justice you'll get if you hate Bush will be an election. Bush is never going to be brought up on war crimes or impeached, wrong or right that isn't going to happen, unless you can get him to lie under oath about something else. :p

The upsetting thing for many is that this war didn't go nearly as bad as some people wanted it to and its going to be a hard sell to convince any conservatives of that. The left isn't going anywhere by chasing this, because most Americans don't feel that the war was an international tragedy.

I'll spend my time hoping that Iraq is better off, others can spend time hoping the situation gets worse so we'll elect a democrat next time.

How can you twist the president lying to the nation to start a war into people hoping the war wouldn't go well or hoping the situation gets worse?

Your completely biased argument leaves out a few small facts. The USA attacked another nation on Bush's word that they had WMD and were prepared to use it against us at any moment. Don't you realise what the result of this type of leadership is for our nation? When a leader can stand in front of his nation and trick them into war then in front of the whole world be exposed for his lie the repercussions are unavoidable. Bush set out by declaring other nations the "axis of evil" then through his actions made our nation evil.

I know Americans will have a hard time seeing our nation in that light, but try to see this situation through the eyes of the rest of the world. We started the war over WMD and an imminent threat to our country. Now it is apparent there was no threat. We have invaded and destroyed another nation under false pretences. How will we be judged by history?


You have assumed that there are no weapons there. I believe they are there, and that we'll find them, or we'll find out they've left the country already. I don't think Bush lied, I think he genuinely believed that there were weapons there, and I think he'll find them. Regardless I wasn't supporting this war because of the WMD's I was supporting it to get Hussein out of the Middle East. That's my reason, and that has been done, nothing you say is going to make me forget that Iraqis were being ruined by Hussein, so I for one think that we should focus on making Iraq a better country. The hunt for WMD's will yield something eventually. Invaded and destroyed another nation...not how I would define it. Iraq will be better off without Hussein whether you want them to be or not.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Regardless I wasn't supporting this war because of the WMD's I was supporting it to get Hussein out of the Middle East. That's my reason, and that has been done, nothing you say is going to make me forget that Iraqis were being ruined by Hussein, so I for one think that we should focus on making Iraq a better country. The hunt for WMD's will yield something eventually.

Yes but now Rumsfeld is using Saddam Uncertainty to explain our lack of progress in Iraq . . . sounds like we've solved nothing . . . yet. Saddam certainly ran his country into the ground but the actions of a myriad of nations plus the UN helped all along the way. Iraq is no longer a country . . . it's a lawless protectorate of the USA.

The hunt for WMD will yield something eventually . . . Blix should have tried that argument to justify longer inspections
rolleye.gif
. Oh nevermind, UN inspections did yield something.
 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
Blix didn't have the means to search like we do. He would never have found anything. We will at some point, but by the time we do, nobody who didn't support the war is going to accept them anyway, and everyone who did will say there's the proof.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
BOBDN you can be the independent investigator. Good luck trying to figure out what Bush knew and when he knew it. Those who trust Bush or like Bush will just say he made a mistake and those that dislike Bush will say he lied. The only justice you'll get if you hate Bush will be an election. Bush is never going to be brought up on war crimes or impeached, wrong or right that isn't going to happen, unless you can get him to lie under oath about something else. :p

The upsetting thing for many is that this war didn't go nearly as bad as some people wanted it to and its going to be a hard sell to convince any conservatives of that. The left isn't going anywhere by chasing this, because most Americans don't feel that the war was an international tragedy.

I'll spend my time hoping that Iraq is better off, others can spend time hoping the situation gets worse so we'll elect a democrat next time.

How can you twist the president lying to the nation to start a war into people hoping the war wouldn't go well or hoping the situation gets worse?

Your completely biased argument leaves out a few small facts. The USA attacked another nation on Bush's word that they had WMD and were prepared to use it against us at any moment. Don't you realise what the result of this type of leadership is for our nation? When a leader can stand in front of his nation and trick them into war then in front of the whole world be exposed for his lie the repercussions are unavoidable. Bush set out by declaring other nations the "axis of evil" then through his actions made our nation evil.

I know Americans will have a hard time seeing our nation in that light, but try to see this situation through the eyes of the rest of the world. We started the war over WMD and an imminent threat to our country. Now it is apparent there was no threat. We have invaded and destroyed another nation under false pretences. How will we be judged by history?


You have assumed that there are no weapons there. I believe they are there, and that we'll find them, or we'll find out they've left the country already. I don't think Bush lied, I think he genuinely believed that there were weapons there, and I think he'll find them. Regardless I wasn't supporting this war because of the WMD's I was supporting it to get Hussein out of the Middle East. That's my reason, and that has been done, nothing you say is going to make me forget that Iraqis were being ruined by Hussein, so I for one think that we should focus on making Iraq a better country. The hunt for WMD's will yield something eventually. Invaded and destroyed another nation...not how I would define it. Iraq will be better off without Hussein whether you want them to be or not.

The Bush administration and those that support their gunboat diplomacy need to get off their high horse and realize they are not capable or have the authority to decide the fate of sovereign nations. The motive for this invasion as stated by Bush and others from his administration was the imminent threat of Iraq using thousands of tons of WMD along with a nuclear program to attack the USA. None of the threats are true.

Whether or not you consider "regime change" as adequate reason for invading other nations it is not legal by international law to do so. If that is the criteria then the nation with the most weapons always wins. Not much of an improvement over cavemen.

How many times are you people going to be fooled by the same tricks? Are you surprised every time the toaster pops up? I've seen this act several times before in my lifetime. It always turns out the same. They concoct some reason to advance their secret agenda then backpedal until people forget what the original reasons were.

History will judge the US as an invader. Iraq is WORSE OFF now than they were under Hussein. The situation will not improve for many years. In five years time we can discuss this again. We'll see if the rosy picture you paint of Iraq's future comes to fruition or if their nation is still in a shambles being ruled by a foreign power. In either event there are thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who will NEVER get to see the outcome whatever way it turns out. That is our legacy in Iraq. And it was ALL BASED ON BUSH'S LIES.

edit typo
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
Blix didn't have the means to search like we do. He would never have found anything. We will at some point, but by the time we do, nobody who didn't support the war is going to accept them anyway, and everyone who did will say there's the proof.

Blix didn't have the means to search like we do? But we can't find any WMD in Iraq? That is the worst excuse I've heard yet. You should consider taking over Ari Fleischer's job if you believe that. Fleischer can't even stomach the lies they have him telling.

Thousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons don't just disappear. They can't simply be moved. Their movement would be detected. The only logical answer is they were never there in the first place. Bush lied about Iraq's WMD and nuclear weapons to start an invasion for reasons we can only guess at. I've heard everything from oil to regime change to bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people to having a power base in the region. None of those are valid reasons under international law. The reason Bush gave for invading Iraq was Iraq's EXISTING WMD and their intent to use same against the USA. This has been clearly exposed as a lie.

If we are so much better than Blix and ElBaradei at finding WMD why haven't we found any in the past 3 months?

Because it isn't there and Bush knew it all along. Unfortunately there are many Americans who will believe whatever Bush tells them. And even if they are given ironclad proof of his lies they still wont care. And we call ourselves the world's best hope for democracy while we invade nations over lies. Hypocrites.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
P.S. Just as an aside. I'd like to see what you Republicans would be saying about all this if this was a Democratic president in office. Maybe Bill Clinton, for instance. I'm willing to wager you'd all be singing a different tune.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
.......Bush lied about Iraq's WMD and nuclear weapons to start an invasion for reasons we can only guess at.......This has been clearly exposed as a lie......Because it isn't there and Bush knew it all along.

Of course you don't have a single shred of evidence to support your contention that Bush knowingly lied. If it were all a "lie", and that Bush knew there weren't *any* WMD's, logic dictates that he would have planted some, thus their discovery early on in the game, keeping the lie and true motives from further scrutiny.

Unfortunately there are many Americans who will believe whatever Bush tells them.

Unfortunately there are many Americans who will believe whatever rabid Bush hating people like you tell them too.....
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Corn
.......Bush lied about Iraq's WMD and nuclear weapons to start an invasion for reasons we can only guess at.......This has been clearly exposed as a lie......Because it isn't there and Bush knew it all along.

Of course you don't have a single shred of evidence to support your contention that Bush knowingly lied. If it were all a "lie", and that Bush knew there weren't *any* WMD's, logic dictates that he would have planted some, thus their discovery early on in the game, keeping the lie and true motives from further scrutiny.

Unfortunately there are many Americans who will believe whatever Bush tells them.

Unfortunately there are many Americans who will believe whatever rabid Bush hating people like you tell them too.....

Uh huh. Read this and tell me that fairy tale again. Oh, and be sure to read the footnotes to verify the accuracy of the piece. Union Bank was SEIZED by the USA for doing business with the nazis. Prescott Bush ran Union Bank.

Bush hater my A$$. Read the facts. Then tell me why you're still a rabid Bush lover.

 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Corn
.......Bush lied about Iraq's WMD and nuclear weapons to start an invasion for reasons we can only guess at.......This has been clearly exposed as a lie......Because it isn't there and Bush knew it all along.

Of course you don't have a single shred of evidence to support your contention that Bush knowingly lied. If it were all a "lie", and that Bush knew there weren't *any* WMD's, logic dictates that he would have planted some, thus their discovery early on in the game, keeping the lie and true motives from further scrutiny.

Unfortunately there are many Americans who will believe whatever Bush tells them.

Unfortunately there are many Americans who will believe whatever rabid Bush hating people like you tell them too.....

Uh huh. Read this and tell me that fairy tale again. Oh, and be sure to read the footnotes to verify the accuracy of the piece. Union Bank was SEIZED by the USA for doing business with the nazis. Prescott Bush ran Union Bank.

Bush hater my A$$. Read the facts. Then tell me why you're still a rabid Bush lover.



I'm convinced. I hate the George Bush = Prescott Bush = Nazi Supporter = Nazi. Does Sharon know this? We better let him know. Do I get a t-shirt for signing up with "the Revolution" now? :p
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
those wacky iraqis were just cheering the destruction of their country, what a bunch of wackos, maybe they were cheering one last time for saddam?
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
those wacky iraqis were just cheering the destruction of their country, what a bunch of wackos, maybe they were cheering one last time for saddam?

They were screaming for help.

From this.