One of my favorite quotes

[HankMorgan]

The quote is from Bernard Goldberg's book "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America" and is about number 3 on the list, Senator Ted Kennedy.



The latest highlight on the Ted Kennedy reel, of course, involves George W. Bush and Iraq. In September 2003, the senator was claiming that the Iraq War was "a fraud made up in Texas to give Republicans a political boost." This is pretty serious stuff -- charging that the president of the United States went to war in order to win reelection. And exacly how would that work? Let's see, President Bush takes the nation to war, an enormously risky political proposition, says the reason we're going to war is that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, even though the president knows the weapons don't really exist, and that sooner or later, certainly before the election, everyone will know they don't exist...and he does this "to give Republicans a political boost"?

Am I missing something?


Really, how was the great lie supposed to work? If you think the President is stupid and didn't think ahead to the consequences of his lie, you are living in a fantasy world and your candidates probably lose elections.

Why hasn't somebody stepped forward with the proof that will knock President Bush from office and end Republican power for a minimum of a generation? Everyone must love the President and Republicans. That's all I can figure.

If President Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq, then everyone else who said the same thing lied also. Simple logic, eh?

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html

[visceroid]

From the War of 1812 to Vietnam, no president who sought re-election in wartime lost.

[HankMorgan]

Everyone seems to be leaving my questions alone. They'd rather stand on a street corner holding a "Bush lied, people died" sign.

I guess I should feel relief. Until Democrats come to accept reality, they won't win elections.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm sorry I must be confused. Are you actually saying there were WMDs in Iraq and that the President didn't lie? If this is the case I have several questions for you:
1) Where are they?
2) Why did the UN inspectors not find them?
3) If Saddam had them, why didn't he use them when we invaded the sovereign nation?

Until you can answer these with rational responses you may stop talking about how the President didn't lie as you have no basis for your comments.


If President Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq, then everyone else who said the same thing lied also. Simple logic, eh?

Yes, Bush, Ashcroft, Cheney, Rice, and all of them lied.
And we have proof of that, and that is the total absence of WMDs in Iraq!



I guess I should feel relief. Until Democrats come to accept reality, they won't win elections.

We (most members on RevLeft) are not democrats. Democrats are practically Republicans with a few differences. We are communists/anarchists/socialists and all the varieties of those titles. Don't get them confused.

-- August

[James]

The issue of WMD is in a sense very very simple.

The US and UK adiminstrations put their credibility on the line: they said before the war that there were WMD in Iraq.

As such it is very easy to see if there are or were any in Iraq; because both admins would make any such discovery incredibly public.

So far nothing of real substance has been found, except for stuff that our countries sold him a while back. An example of this was the equipment which was discovered and initially thought to be portable chemical labs - but then the truth was revealed: brits had sold saddam the equipment; and the equipment was nothing to do with chemical weapons (it was observation baloon equipment - see a previous Private Eye for the full story).


Further more, we have seen a concerted effort by the administrations to change the agenda post invasion, from WMD to "Nation Building". It is certainly what i would do in their shoes - it is hard to argue against making Iraq "democratic".
Meanwhile, WMD drops off the agenda.


I personally am not sure whether it was a blatant lie - or a failure in intelligence. I expect is partly both (WMD was seen as a threat by the administrations; but was not the sole reason for invading).

[Decolonize The Left]

It was far from the only reason for invading. In fact I think it played little role in the actual reasons for invasion, I think it was just a ploy to scare the American people into rallying for war.

The real reasons are oil, backing Israel, personal vendetta, and setting up the rest of the Middle East (and subsequently their oil).

-- August

[James]

August;

It was far from the only reason for invading.


That may well be true: i was simply discussing whether it was a blatant lie, or an actual concern. Or a kind of mixture.


I think it was just a ploy to scare the American people into rallying for war.

Clearly, you are more sure than i.
I find it hard to believe though that Blair would have wilfully ruined his reputation in the way that he has.


The real reasons are oil, backing Israel, personal vendetta, and setting up the rest of the Middle East (and subsequently their oil).

I hesitate to use such language. I don't think anyone actually knows the "real reasons".

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 03:03 AM
I'm sorry I must be confused. Are you actually saying there were WMDs in Iraq and that the President didn't lie? If this is the case I have several questions for you:
1) Where are they?
2) Why did the UN inspectors not find them?
3) If Saddam had them, why didn't he use them when we invaded the sovereign nation?

Until you can answer these with rational responses you may stop talking about how the President didn't lie as you have no basis for your comments.


If President Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq, then everyone else who said the same thing lied also. Simple logic, eh?

Yes, Bush, Ashcroft, Cheney, Rice, and all of them lied.
And we have proof of that, and that is the total absence of WMDs in Iraq!



I guess I should feel relief. Until Democrats come to accept reality, they won't win elections.

We (most members on RevLeft) are not democrats. Democrats are practically Republicans with a few differences. We are communists/anarchists/socialists and all the varieties of those titles. Don't get them confused.

-- August
Let me see if I can clear some confusion and then ask you a question.

My mind is still open on whether or not there were WMD's in Iraq prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. To date no WMD's have shown up, at least in quantities worth invading over. So I say there were no WMD's at the time of the invasion. That makes answering your questions easy.

1. Where are they? They don't exist.
2. Why did the UN inspectors not find them? At the time of the invasion there were none to be found.
3. If Saddam had them, why didn't he use them? He didn't have them at the time of the invasion.

Rational enough for you?

The total absence of WMD's in Iraq doesn't constitute proof that President Bush lied. Let's come at this another way.

When did President Bush learn that there are no WMD's in Iraq?

Was it prior to the invasion of Iraq at the time he and his administration were making statements to the contrary? If so, that makes the President a liar. If so, all you need to do is give proof to your senator or congress person and that's the end of President Bush and Republican power for a generation. This assumes that lying to lead the nation into war is an impeachable offense. I think it is.

Was it after the invasion or as a result of the invasion? If so, does that make the President a liar or does it just add him to the list of folks who were fooled. The list includes the Clinton administration, the UN, the Russians and all the senators and congressmen who argued for the invasion during the resolution debate.

So, August, how do you come down on this?

Your point on Democrats and Republicans is noted and accepted.

[Decolonize The Left]

Rational enough for you?

Yes.


When did President Bush learn that there are no WMD's in Iraq?


I don't think he "learned" anything. I think he knew. "Learned" implies that something was unknown before, I don't think this is the case.
I think Bush, and his administration, knew Saddam did not possess weapons of mass destruction, also knew he had no capability of attacking the US, and knew that he did not support Al Qaeda.
They knew all these things (in my opinion), and yet lied about them to the American public in order to gain support to go to war over oil.


If so, does that make the President a liar or does it just add him to the list of folks who were fooled. The list includes the Clinton administration, the UN, the Russians and all the senators and congressmen who argued for the invasion during the resolution debate.

The President was not fooled. The American public was fooled, and now 1,800+ soldiers have died, and more importantly, 16,000+ innocent civilians have died. Can you justify 16,000 innocent deaths with suspisicion of WMDs? No.

Let's also not forget that this war is costing the people of America pain here at home. Underfunding of schools, medicare, social security, this war and the imperialist attitude of the US is costing Americans their future (not to mention the problems of capitalism, but that's another subject). This cannot be denied.

-- August

[workersunity]

that book is nothing about bullshit, firstly the way its put together is total shit, secondly he has nothing better to do than state his fucked up opinions which only a tiny amount of people wanna read, most of it is just bullflop, with no point except arousing people towards his thought

[bed_of_nails]

I think the WMD's thing was false and Bush's excuse to go to war. After that they were grasping for reasons to be in Iraq until they came to "Freedom for the people".

Bush went to college at a place he obviously is going to read up on politics. One of the greatest political speakers ever was Cicero. Bush undoubtedly was versed in Cicero's orations against Cataline.

If you read through Cicero's orations against Cataline, it is nearly identical to the behavior of the Bush administration. Cataline made up a statement about his soon-to-be enemy so he could wage war against them and got (very) lucky when someone stumbled into his hands who actually made the statement true.

Bush tried this exact same tactic with an accepted assumption with little or no evidence backing it, hoping to find the evidence when he had people in Iraq. He didnt find this evidence and began grasping at threads for an excuse on why he was there.

[Intifada]

(HankMorgan)

Was it prior to the invasion of Iraq at the time he and his administration were making statements to the contrary? If so, that makes the President a liar.

Hmm...

While meeting at Cairo's Ittihadiya Palace with Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Moussa on February 24th 2001, Colin Powell stated:

He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.

On 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer.

In reference to the criminal sanctions placed upon the Iraqi people, Rice stated:

He [Saddam Hussein] does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

The fact that the Bush administration was not worried about Saddam Hussein, particularly in respect to his WMD capabilities, prior to 9/11, gives me the irrefutable impression that the accusations that led up to the invasion were simply excuses in the rush to quickly invade and occpy Iraq.

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 07:59 PM
I don't think he "learned" anything. I think he knew. "Learned" implies that something was unknown before, I don't think this is the case.
I think Bush, and his administration, knew Saddam did not possess weapons of mass destruction, also knew he had no capability of attacking the US, and knew that he did not support Al Qaeda.
They knew all these things (in my opinion), and yet lied about them to the American public in order to gain support to go to war over oil.

Yes, August, "learned" does imply that something was unknown before and now is known. That's where I'm going.

When President Bush sprang from the womb he had no knowledge of anything let alone weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Sometime between the date of his birth and today, 9/12/2005, he learned that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. My question to you is when did knowledge of Iraq's WMD's enter President Bush's brain?

Was a prior to the invasion at the time he was making statements asserting the presence of WMD's in Iraq?

Was it after the invasion of Iraq or as a result of the invasion?

You can't claim that the President and his administration just knew. Humans don't have this kind of instinct.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Why didn't anyone reply to Intifada's post?

And yes the Republicans and Democrats voted for the war. What's your point?

Communists and anarchists oppose capitalism, not soley the Republican party. I think you are arguing against straw men here. Maybe this post would be better off at www.liberalforum.org

[Andy Bowden]

If George W Bush did think, honestly that there were WMD and din't lie then he is either incompetent and foolish, or the people that informed him there were WMD are incompetent and foolish.

I mean saying a country has a vast arsenal of WMD and it turns out it has virtually nothing is about as big an intelligence fuck-up as you can get. If it was an intelligence fuck-up (which i really doubt) someone should take the rap for it.


<_<

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 03:56 AM
Why didn&#39;t anyone reply to Intifada&#39;s post?
Yes.

I am surprised that our old friend HankMorgan has just skipped my post.

Odd don&#39;t you think?

[Decolonize The Left]

When President Bush sprang from the womb he had no knowledge of anything let alone weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Sometime between the date of his birth and today, 9/12/2005, he learned that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. My question to you is when did knowledge of Iraq&#39;s WMD&#39;s enter President Bush&#39;s brain?

This whole statement relies on the premise that he believed there were WMDs in Iraq, and was not lying.

I think he was lying.

BUT, somehow if he wasn&#39;t, let&#39;s look at that scenario:
The most powerful country in the world thinks, believes, that another country has WMDs. We invade, and kill 16,000+ innocent civilians, make hundreds of thousands more homeless, ruin an economy, and find no WMDs...
Justified?
Perhaps if they did have WMDs, and we found them, and they were capable of reaching the US. But none of this was true, there were no WMDs. Which means two things:
1) Bush lied
2) Bush and the US administration failed miserably at gathering intelligence, and doing their job.
In both cases he (and his administration) should be impeached immediately.

-- August

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 02:26 PM

When President Bush sprang from the womb he had no knowledge of anything let alone weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Sometime between the date of his birth and today, 9/12/2005, he learned that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. My question to you is when did knowledge of Iraq&#39;s WMD&#39;s enter President Bush&#39;s brain?

This whole statement relies on the premise that he believed there were WMDs in Iraq, and was not lying.

I think he was lying.

BUT, somehow if he wasn&#39;t, let&#39;s look at that scenario:
The most powerful country in the world thinks, believes, that another country has WMDs. We invade, and kill 16,000+ innocent civilians, make hundreds of thousands more homeless, ruin an economy, and find no WMDs...
Justified?
Perhaps if they did have WMDs, and we found them, and they were capable of reaching the US. But none of this was true, there were no WMDs. Which means two things:
1) Bush lied
2) Bush and the US administration failed miserably at gathering intelligence, and doing their job.
In both cases he (and his administration) should be impeached immediately.

-- August
So you believe the President knew there were no WMD&#39;s in Iraq at the time he was making statements to the contrary. Is this a religious belief, do you have proof or are going to go with Intifada&#39;s "irrefutable impression"?

You know Intifada, if you take your irrefutable impression to a District Attorney, he can press charges against the President that will land him in jail and end the Republican majority for a generation. You&#39;ll be famous. Please do me a favor. Mention it was your old friend HankMorgan who alerted you to the power you have.

I don&#39;t think the President lied. He didn&#39;t say anything different that the Clinton administration or the United Nations or the British or the Russians. Look back at the pre-war debate here on Che-Lives (long may it prosper). The debate here was what to do about the weapons, not whether they existed. Intelligence screw up? That&#39;s fair. It makes more sense then calling it a lie. Too many things just don&#39;t add up if you call it a lie. Plus you put yourself in the position of proving what the President knew and when he knew it. That&#39;s the reason nobody has started down the path of impeachment.

Justified? Yes. Please go to your library, pick up the June 2004 issue of National Geographic, turn to page 29. There&#39;s a photo of a man sobbing into his left hand. In his right is a rib bone pulled from a mass grave. It is the bone of a person killed to prop up the regime of a madman. The US led Coalition stopped the filling of mass graves.

Knowing what I know now about WMD&#39;s in Iraq, I&#39;d still invade.

One last thought. Lying to start a war is a very serious offense, worthy of execution in my opinion. If you have proof that the President lied you have a moral obligation to bring it forward. A MORAL OBLIGATION. If you don&#39;t have proof and you stand on a corner with a sign saying "Bush lied, people died" you are lying yourself. You are full of shit. You are the kind of wild eyed foaming at the mouth hate filled person who will say anything no matter how nonsensical or irrational or obviously stupid to attack the President.

[praxis1966]

I hesitate to use such language. I don&#39;t think anyone actually knows the "real reasons".

Including Bu&#036;h. Cheney probably has an idea, though.


Everyone seems to be leaving my questions alone. They&#39;d rather stand on a street corner holding a "Bush lied, people died" sign.

Let me take a crack at it then.


Really, how was the great lie supposed to work? If you think the President is stupid and didn&#39;t think ahead to the consequences of his lie, you are living in a fantasy world and your candidates probably lose elections.

He and his people have been looking for an excuse to invade Iraq since 1998. Several top officials in his administration signed an open letter that year to then President Clinton, imploring him to invade Iraq. Let&#39;s not forget, the first reason Bu&#036;h gave for invading was most certainly not WMD&#39;s. It was Hussein&#39;s connection with 9/11, an allegation later to be proved false as well.


Why hasn&#39;t somebody stepped forward with the proof that will knock President Bush from office and end Republican power for a minimum of a generation?

It&#39;s called the National Security Act and subsequent ammendments. Any proof that might have existed that Bu&#036;h knew what he was saying was untrue has, in all likelihood, either been classified or destroyed. Let&#39;s not forget that this administration has been the stingiest in recent memory as far as release of information is concerned.

Hell, they&#39;ve even made attempts to have things classified that were already reported in the mass media. Nevermind the fact that we (the people) will probably never see the bulk of what was found by the 9/11 comission, and that the Bu&#036;h administration is currently attempting to stop an independant commission regarding the Iraq invasion. If you don&#39;t believe me, you should try watching less Fox News and more CNN.


Justified? Yes. Please go to your library, pick up the June 2004 issue of National Geographic, turn to page 29. There&#39;s a photo of a man sobbing into his left hand. In his right is a rib bone pulled from a mass grave. It is the bone of a person killed to prop up the regime of a madman. The US led Coalition stopped the filling of mass graves.

No, they stopped when Bu&#036;h&#39;s father was president, before the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq ever occured. Even the Kurds are like, "Hey, it was the 80s. It was a crazy time for everybody."


Knowing what I know now about WMD&#39;s in Iraq, I&#39;d still invade.

Knowing what I know about genocide in Iraq, I&#39;d invade Sudan, being that the death toll from the genocide there has climbed to over 300,000 over the last two years with another 70,000 having died in refugee camps.

[Decolonize The Left]

So you believe the President knew there were no WMD&#39;s in Iraq at the time he was making statements to the contrary. Is this a religious belief, do you have proof or are going to go with Intifada&#39;s "irrefutable impression"?

No, it is my belief, just as you believe Bush did not lie. They are both beliefs, and subjective, and therefore it is a null point.


I don&#39;t think the President lied.

See above. But note your argument also applies to yourself.


Intelligence screw up? That&#39;s fair. It makes more sense then calling it a lie.

Perhaps, but my point still stands.


Justified? Yes. Please go to your library, pick up the June 2004 issue of National Geographic, turn to page 29. There&#39;s a photo of a man sobbing into his left hand. In his right is a rib bone pulled from a mass grave. It is the bone of a person killed to prop up the regime of a madman. The US led Coalition stopped the filling of mass graves.

Knowing what I know now about WMD&#39;s in Iraq, I&#39;d still invade.

:lol:

Wow. I didn&#39;t think you would take the path of the administration and change the topic.
Remember when we didn&#39;t find WMDs? What was the next immediate justification for the war: Saddam was evil, and his people suppressed, and we will liberate them.

It&#39;s a cute argument, but it strays totally from the original debate. Try to stay on topic.



One last thought. Lying to start a war is a very serious offense, worthy of execution in my opinion. If you have proof that the President lied you have a moral obligation to bring it forward. A MORAL OBLIGATION. If you don&#39;t have proof and you stand on a corner with a sign saying "Bush lied, people died" you are lying yourself. You are full of shit. You are the kind of wild eyed foaming at the mouth hate filled person who will say anything no matter how nonsensical or irrational or obviously stupid to attack the President.

Well this is interesting. I didn&#39;t state I know he was lying, I said I believe he was lying. My belief doesn&#39;t make it true, but I have justification (in my mind) enough to believe it to be true. Just as you do for your belief that he didn&#39;t lie. It is regardless as I proposed another solution which is an equally "serious offense".

You never addressed the idea that we might have invaded a sovereign nation on totally failed intelligence. That constitues a failure of the administration. If we had faulty intelligence that Canada was growing California poppies, and we asked them to stop, fine, our mistake.
But if you invade a sovereign nation and kill 16,000+ innocent civilians, leave hundreds of thousands more homeless, and destroy and entire economy because "we thought you had the same weapons we have" you are foolish and inhumane. An act like this is not one of an free, equal, and humane society, it is one of imperial tyranny.

Bush lied, he didn&#39;t lie, whatever we will never know whether or not he "believed" it. So why use that as an argument? It is equally as detrimental to your argument and point.
To tell you the truth, I think he didn&#39;t care. I don&#39;t think he cared whether there were WMDs, he was going to invade anyway. This is why I originally said it was a possibility, which was turned into a truism and thrown at the public as a scare to war.

But my point still stands. It was composed of two arguments to why the President and his administration should be removed from power. The first one was my belief, and if my belief is true, he should be removed from power.
The second I just elaborated on above, and stands.

-- August

[Intifada]

(HankMorgan)

You know Intifada, if you take your irrefutable impression to a District Attorney, he can press charges against the President that will land him in jail and end the Republican majority for a generation.

The problem is that I am not a citizen of the good old US of A.

Anyway, action has been long underway to bring both Blair and Bush to justice. Ever heard of the WTI? (http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=91)


I don&#39;t think the President lied. He didn&#39;t say anything different that the Clinton administration or the United Nations or the British or the Russians.

Why should we trust the same nations who kill other innocent people world over, such as Iraq and Chechnya, to come up with intelligence that is worth taking at face value?

Clinton and Britain were killing Iraqis through their criminal sanctions long before the recent invasion. Why should I take their word on issues relating to Iraq?

Even the IAEA had, in 1998, ensured that Iraq was disarmed completely of WMDs.


Justified? Yes. Please go to your library, pick up the June 2004 issue of National Geographic, turn to page 29. There&#39;s a photo of a man sobbing into his left hand. In his right is a rib bone pulled from a mass grave. It is the bone of a person killed to prop up the regime of a madman.

The fact that you are now changing topics speaks volumes, but I shall respond to this anyway.

If you are so affected by images from Iraq, then check out these (http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album18) Iraqis who bore the brunt of the US invasion.

Or look at these (http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=Iraqi_hospitals) Iraqi babies who have been affected by the "liberation."

The last one does not include the more gruesome pictures of the babies the Americans deformed and killed with the use of Depleted Uranium, or the 500000 or so under-fives that were murdered by the sanctions imposed by the US and the UK.

Talk about a "mass grave" huh?


The US led Coalition stopped the filling of mass graves.


The US helped Saddam in his "filling of mass graves" before the First Gulf War. Then the US simply did the job itself, ever since the First Gulf War, and are doing a much better job of it.

Wake up.

[Decolonize The Left]

Well put Intifada.

-- August