Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

Regarding our reasons for entering the Iraq war. It would clearly seem that pursuing "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was not our primary goal, nation-building was. However, it doesn't make sense to argue that Bush "lied" about the WMD. It seems far more likely that his administration was simply vastly incompetent at intelligence gathering, analysis, and interpretation. If the Bush administration *knew* that there were no WMD in Iraq, it would be completely illogical to lie about it in order to get us into the war. Why? Because his administration would have to know that after a few years of being in Iraq, when no WMD were found, it would come back to bite them in the ass. And while Bush may be dumb enough to not think this far ahead, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove certainly aren't. Can anyone provide a counter-argument to this?

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

Can't it be both? Your average american wouldn't give a crap about WMDs if the military had rolled in there, crushed Saddam's army, and set up a stable government. If 2 years after the invasion there was no real insurgancy anything short of absolute proof of the administration lying would be brushed off by the "but the Iraqi's are so much better off now" crowd. A war in which Americans do "great" things isn't going to be criticized by and large by the public, they gain a national pride out of stuff like that, so as long as the administration thought that it could pull of the occupation without much difficulty they really don't have much to fear from accusations of lying.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

I've brought this up multiple times in discussions with the Bush hating members of my family. Their answer is that everyone in his administartion is so incompetent, nobody thought about the ramifications of lying initially. I pass no judgement on how moronic this explanation is.
WMD's were an attempt to sell the war to the UN, nothing else.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

The Bush administration knowingly lied -- in the sense of an exaggeration being a lie.(IMO).

They then compounded it with the simple minded view that we would be seen as liberating heroes, welcomed and in a few short months a pro-US, democracy would be functioning with the help of the US Army.

If the second had come true, the first would have been irrelevant. Oil would be flowing from Iraq, via US contractors, the Army would be ready to continue its primary mission these days -- serving and protecting the Israeli state, happy times.

Like the fish, the play was made looking at our cards only.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

All governments lie, especially when they are going to war. They don't care about what will or won't be found out later, they spin it so it looks OK. No WMDs were found, yet Bush still won reelection and the Republicans retained control of Congress.

Compare the example of Vietnam. Our government lied about it continually from day one. Yet support for the war remained strong, despite the anti-war movement and the revelations of the Pentagon Papers. Richard Nixon won reelection in a landslide in 1972. And later on, many people believe that the war was "lost" by those who opposed it, or told the truth about it. The Big Lie often lives on.

Immediately after 9/11, the vast majority of Americans correctly assumed that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. But on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, most thought he did. How did that happen?

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

"WMD's were an attempt to sell the war to the UN"

Powell went there with a brief case full of lies, half-truths and exaggerations. A sales job indeed.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

It may well be that the Bush administration believed Chalabi's fantasies and that, indeed, we could bring about an Edenic Iraq in a couple of years and all would be either forgiven or forgotten about teh reasons promulgated for going in there in the first place. Certainly the administration's willful ignoring of the advice of experts both within and outside the government on what would happen in the wake of the occupation give substance to the claim that they felt we could remake the country in our image in relatively short order.

There is also the sense that the administration didn't care about counter-arguments, the important thing was going in there and getting rid of Hussein and everything else be damned. Certainly key members of the administration had been calling for regime change in Iraq long before 9/11. So they needed excuses to go in. 9/11 and the possibility of another 9/11 provided them.

I'm still amazed that people find it incredible that the government could have lied about this. EVERY GOVERNMENT LIES WHEN IT GOES TO WAR. The incredible thing would have been if they didn't lie. The issues are always framed in terms of good and evil, with the good, by definition, being our side, and the evil the other side.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

the 3 people you just mentioned are very intelligent and are acomplishing what they want..... go the new american century website and you will see that they have wanted to go to the middle east long before 9 11 which leads me to believ that they did 9 11 if you look at any facts of the circumstances behind the events you will see that logically the governments official story and the 9 11 commision investigation make no common sense when compared with fact of the day....

bush and cheney rubsfield and rove are not "vastly incompetent at all"

they are very intelligent people with no morals and planned 9 11 to take our freedom and money....

through the patriot act and war....

the elite world government has its grip on usa until we can elect a third party and get out the beurocrats....

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still amazed that people find it incredible that the government could have lied about this. EVERY GOVERNMENT LIES WHEN IT GOES TO WAR. The incredible thing would have been if they didn't lie. The issues are always framed in terms of good and evil, with the good, by definition, being our side, and the evil the other side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, you're my favorite Democrat in the whole world [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

The WMD question has been settled. They were there. Some were destroyed by Saddam prior to the war, some have been found, some have been used against coalition troops, some were moved to Syria, and some are probably still there waiting to be discovered.

There have been dozens of news stories about WMD found in Iraq in the last 2-3 years. Anyone who watches the news occasionally would know this.

Bush knew it.
Clinton knew it.
Congress knew it.
The UN weapons inspectors knew it.
Tony Blair knew it.
Saddam Hussein knew it.
Every government with an international intelligence agency knew it.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

Could you post a link showing where WMDs have been used against coalition troops?

Also could you post a link showing where and when WMDs were moved to Syria?

~~~~~~

So there you have it. Of course they lied. The administration has lied numerous times on many matters. The usual MO goes like this:

1. Administration tells big fat lie.
Some one points out the lie.

2. Administration smears that person and repeats lie.
Some one shows documented evidence, with 23 photographs with arrows and explanations on the back of each one, proving the falsehood.

3. Administration denies ever saying the lie, then repeats it.
Some one plays video tape, documented recordings, and sworn testimony from witnesses saying Administration said the lie.

4. Administration claims all quotes are taken out of context, then brings up flag burning or gay marriage.

Then absolutely nothing happens, the matter is dropped, and the cycle is repeated shortly after when the next lie is told.

And bottom line -- a certain percentage of the people still believe the original lie.

Why wouldn't they lie? It accomplishes what they need to get done, it rallys their base among the believers, and there has been no negative costs.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding our reasons for entering the Iraq war. It would clearly seem that pursuing "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was not our primary goal, nation-building was. However, it doesn't make sense to argue that Bush "lied" about the WMD. It seems far more likely that his administration was simply vastly incompetent at intelligence gathering, analysis, and interpretation. If the Bush administration *knew* that there were no WMD in Iraq, it would be completely illogical to lie about it in order to get us into the war. Why? Because his administration would have to know that after a few years of being in Iraq, when no WMD were found, it would come back to bite them in the ass. And while Bush may be dumb enough to not think this far ahead, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove certainly aren't. Can anyone provide a counter-argument to this?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is one of the reasons why he sent in 1/3 the number of troops required, according to the 12 yr Pentagon Plan: So that the American people would see just how vicious the insurgents are. Now the American people want to get even for the 2500+ troops killed in Iraq.

If we had invaded Iraq in accordance with the Pentagon plan, we would have quashed the insurgents, installed a new government and been home before you had to change the oil in your car twice and we would have looked like Big Bullies to the World.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

I don't see Bush as someone who needs to lie...he simply listens to what people who he holds all his trust tell him and acts on it, whether it makes sense/is totally stupid/or goes against the popular opinion. So if everyone tells him we need 500,000 troops and Dick Cheney says "We only need 307 troops and a well trained german sheperd" then Dick or whoever wins and common sense loses.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The WMD question has been settled. They were there. Some were destroyed by Saddam prior to the war, some have been found, some have been used against coalition troops, some were moved to Syria, and some are probably still there waiting to be discovered.

There have been dozens of news stories about WMD found in Iraq in the last 2-3 years. Anyone who watches the news occasionally would know this.

Bush knew it.
Clinton knew it.
Congress knew it.
The UN weapons inspectors knew it.
Tony Blair knew it.
Saddam Hussein knew it.
Every government with an international intelligence agency knew it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, no. Much of the intelligence presented to congressional leaders in the run-up to war has since been discredited. Moreover, even if Saddam did have some WMD's, there was no reason to believe either (a) that he could use them or (b) that he would use them.

This administration (that is, Cheney and Rumsfeld, with Bush in tow) made up the intelligence to fit their preconceived plan to invade Iraq. They placed enormous pressure on the CIA to shape the intelligence reports. Immediately and persistenly they exploited the nation's emotional reaction to 9/11 to garner support for their war. Hell, they're still doing it.

These guys are far worse than liars. They're criminals, and all of them should be in prison.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

Among the reasons for going in, one was to enforce U.N. resolutions that the previous administration wouldn't.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Among the reasons for going in, one was to enforce U.N. resolutions that the previous administration wouldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I remember well the detailed description of UN resolutions given by Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld on all the talk shows in the run up to the war. Wasn't it Condi Rice that famously said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a torn up copy of a UN resolution"?

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see Bush as someone who needs to lie...he simply listens to what people who he holds all his trust tell him and acts on it, whether it makes sense/is totally stupid/or goes against the popular opinion. So if everyone tells him we need 500,000 troops and Dick Cheney says "We only need 307 troops and a well trained german sheperd" then Dick or whoever wins and common sense loses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't be surprised if you were right, and, if you are, then Bush is incompetent, as he is unable to make intelligent/unbiased decisions. Colin Powell told Bush, as Secretrary of State, that he needed to follow the Pentagon's plan, but, Powell wasn't the Secretary of Defense.

I cannot believe, however, if any of us were Prez, and our cronies, ie. Cheney, Rumsfeld, were telling us one thing, and one of the greatest military leaders of all time were telling us another, that we wouldn't have grave doubts in the info being offered by our cronies.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

[ QUOTE ]
... and we would have looked like Big Bullies to the World.

[/ QUOTE ]

funny you should mention that.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

[ QUOTE ]
EVERY GOVERNMENT LIES WHEN IT GOES TO WAR.

[/ QUOTE ]

andy,

What was FDR's lie in his address to congress on Dec. 8th, 1941?

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

You dont know how he lied? That he knew about Pearl Harbor and intentionally failed to prevent it so he would have an excuse to take us to war? Cmon Bluff, get with it.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... and we would have looked like Big Bullies to the World.

[/ QUOTE ]

funny you should mention that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would account for why the populace of 10 of 14 foreign countries who were polled, found the U.S. as more of a threat to world peace than Iran and Korea?...........

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

[ QUOTE ]
You dont know how he lied? That he knew about Pearl Harbor and intentionally failed to prevent it so he would have an excuse to take us to war? Cmon Bluff, get with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I particularly love this argument, again for its ridiculous logical flaw. (I know you're just being sarcastic). But would someone who holds this view, please explain to me, why, if FDR *knew* Pearl Harbor was about to be attacked, he wouldn't have at least ordered the fleet to sea, or ordered them ready for an attack? We STILL would have gotten into the war, if that was FDR's goal, but at least we would have had an intact fleet, instead of having our pacific defenses decimated.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You dont know how he lied? That he knew about Pearl Harbor and intentionally failed to prevent it so he would have an excuse to take us to war? Cmon Bluff, get with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I particularly love this argument, again for its ridiculous logical flaw. (I know you're just being sarcastic). But would someone who holds this view, please explain to me, why, if FDR *knew* Pearl Harbor was about to be attacked, he wouldn't have at least ordered the fleet to sea, or ordered them ready for an attack? We STILL would have gotten into the war, if that was FDR's goal, but at least we would have had an intact fleet, instead of having our pacific defenses decimated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cryptology.

the codes used by the Japanese were broken - hence we found out about the attack in the first place.

Moving the fleet would have given away to the Japanese that the codes had been broken and they would have chaged them into codes harder to break - as far as I am aware it was decided that it was better to allow the attack to take place and keep intercepting transmissions that the allies could read than run the risk that they would change the codes and then have to break them over again, that the future knowledge provided by the already broken codes would save more lives than simply warning the fleet. AIUI there are many examples of such action littered throughout warfare where the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" so to speak and intelligence gleaned from broken encrypted transmissons was ignored in order to capitalise on that advantage later in some greater fashion - PH is simply the best known.

Although I might be wrong here I'm not well read on Pearl Harbour. The conspiracy theory goes that the whole thing was engineered in any case and all they got from the codes were the precise times - but it's not one I've researched yet.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

[ QUOTE ]
EVERY GOVERNMENT LIES

[/ QUOTE ]

That's really all that needs to be said here.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

On November 15, 1941, General Marshall told a gathering of press bureau chiefs and senior correspondents that "We are preapring an offensive war against Japan, whereas the Japs believe we are preparing only to defend the Phillippines." He continued: "Flying fortreses will be dispatched immediatelyto set the paper cities of Japan on fire. There won't be any hesitation about bombing civilians--it will be all-out."

I don't believe there was much of this in FDR's December 8th address.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

They thought there MIGHT be WMDs in Iraq. Or there might not. But they were going in either way, so why not use that as the reason? If they find them, great. If not, just label any dissenters as unpatriotic defeatists who don't support our troops. The original reasons get lost in the fog of war.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

[ QUOTE ]
But would someone who holds this view, please explain to me, why, if FDR *knew* Pearl Harbor was about to be attacked, he wouldn't have at least ordered the fleet to sea, or ordered them ready for an attack?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lucily for the US the carrier fleet was out of the harbor, and they became the backbone of our Navy.

Did Germany really invade Russia in 1940? It makes no sense n/t
 

.

WMD Found Again?!?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The WMD question has been settled. They were there. Some were destroyed by Saddam prior to the war, some have been found, some have been used against coalition troops, some were moved to Syria, and some are probably still there waiting to be discovered.

There have been dozens of news stories about WMD found in Iraq in the last 2-3 years. Anyone who watches the news occasionally would know this.

Bush knew it.
Clinton knew it.
Congress knew it.
The UN weapons inspectors knew it.
Tony Blair knew it.
Saddam Hussein knew it.
Every government with an international intelligence agency knew it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sir, do you choose to intentionally disregard the evidence that the only WMDs found were of a totally degraded nature left over from Gulf War I?

Do you choose to be ignorant of the facts?

Or do you choose to intentionally misinform for some political purpose?

Do you think there is a reason not even Bush, Cheney, et al. are making the outlandish claims that you are? Is there a reason that Bush's handpicked man, Charles Duefler, said there are no weapons grade WMD. Maybe they are part of the conspiracy to suppress the WMD.

Here, I'll help you with the links:

First, Rick Santorum holds a press conference claiming over 500 WMDs have been found in Iraq. Fox News link

Money quote:
"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."




Next, DoD disavows Santorum's claim:
Think Progress link
Money quote:

Today, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) held a press conference and announced “we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Santorum and Hoekstra are hyping a document that describes degraded, pre-1991 munitions that were already acknowledged by the White House’s Iraq Survey Group and dismissed.

Fox News’ Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra’s claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The incredible thing would have been if they didn't lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, Andy. I'm still amazed that they (the administration) didn't try to sneak some weapons grade WMD into the country to justify the war. No doubt there was some discussion about it at pretty high levels I'm sure. True, I'm speculating here, but I can't see how at least it wouldn't be discussed.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

[ QUOTE ]
it was better to allow the attack to take place

[/ QUOTE ]

Still doesn't explain why the fleet wasn't at least put on alert, this would not have tipped the Japanese off. This conspiracy theory is ridiculously stupid.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

The thing I've never really understood is how the administration got away with telling us what a grave danger Saddam Hussein was in the wake of Hussein's regime falling apart as soon as we went in. If Hussein's military capabilities were such a danger to us, why didn't he use those capabilities to save his regime? The "war" was a cakewalk for us and Husssein himself was found hiding in a hole.

What makes no sense is that a man who was a threat to our way of life, and who knew for months that his country would be attacked, had so little defense for the invasion. What sense would hiding his weapons in Syria make? When would he be able to use them?

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The thing I've never really understood is how the administration got away with telling us what a grave danger Saddam Hussein was in the wake of Hussein's regime falling apart as soon as we went in. If Hussein's military capabilities were such a danger to us, why didn't he use those capabilities to save his regime? The "war" was a cakewalk for us and Husssein himself was found hiding in a hole.

What makes no sense is that a man who was a threat to our way of life, and who knew for months that his country would be attacked, had so little defense for the invasion. What sense would hiding his weapons in Syria make? When would he be able to use them?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying our reasons for going to war were good, however, the Bush administration wasn't arguing that Hussein was a danger to us because he had a strong army that could invade America. The justification was that he had WMD, and could provide them to terrorists.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The thing I've never really understood is how the administration got away with telling us what a grave danger Saddam Hussein was in the wake of Hussein's regime falling apart as soon as we went in. If Hussein's military capabilities were such a danger to us, why didn't he use those capabilities to save his regime? The "war" was a cakewalk for us and Husssein himself was found hiding in a hole.

What makes no sense is that a man who was a threat to our way of life, and who knew for months that his country would be attacked, had so little defense for the invasion. What sense would hiding his weapons in Syria make? When would he be able to use them?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand Saddam's thought process at all.

It looks to me like he was faced with choosing between:

A) Let the inspectors in, keep regime/palaces etc., after all, you don't have any WMD's to hide anyway right?

B) Don't let the inspectors in, lose regime/palaces etc., have large weapons fired in your direction, end up hiding in hole.

So why in the [censored] did Saddam choose option B? What a stupid [censored]. (Unless of course he really DID have something to hide...)

Blame Bush/Right Wing Conspiracy all you want, but this never happens if Saddam doesn't repeatedly fail to comply with UN resolutions...and for what?

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The thing I've never really understood is how the administration got away with telling us what a grave danger Saddam Hussein was in the wake of Hussein's regime falling apart as soon as we went in. If Hussein's military capabilities were such a danger to us, why didn't he use those capabilities to save his regime? The "war" was a cakewalk for us and Husssein himself was found hiding in a hole.

What makes no sense is that a man who was a threat to our way of life, and who knew for months that his country would be attacked, had so little defense for the invasion. What sense would hiding his weapons in Syria make? When would he be able to use them?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand Saddam's thought process at all.

It looks to me like he was faced with choosing between:

A) Let the inspectors in, keep regime/palaces etc., after all, you don't have any WMD's to hide anyway right?

B) Don't let the inspectors in, lose regime/palaces etc., have large weapons fired in your direction, end up hiding in hole.

So why in the [censored] did Saddam choose option B? What a stupid [censored]. (Unless of course he really DID have something to hide...)

Blame Bush/Right Wing Conspiracy all you want, but this never happens if Saddam doesn't repeatedly fail to comply with UN resolutions...and for what?

[/ QUOTE ]

At the end though, Saddam did allow weapons inspectors unfettered access, we kept claiming he wasn't making complete disclosures of his WMD and thats why he was violating UN Resolutions. However, it looks like he was making complete disclosures, since we haven't found any.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The thing I've never really understood is how the administration got away with telling us what a grave danger Saddam Hussein was in the wake of Hussein's regime falling apart as soon as we went in. If Hussein's military capabilities were such a danger to us, why didn't he use those capabilities to save his regime? The "war" was a cakewalk for us and Husssein himself was found hiding in a hole.

What makes no sense is that a man who was a threat to our way of life, and who knew for months that his country would be attacked, had so little defense for the invasion. What sense would hiding his weapons in Syria make? When would he be able to use them?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand Saddam's thought process at all.

It looks to me like he was faced with choosing between:

A) Let the inspectors in, keep regime/palaces etc., after all, you don't have any WMD's to hide anyway right?

B) Don't let the inspectors in, lose regime/palaces etc., have large weapons fired in your direction, end up hiding in hole.

So why in the [censored] did Saddam choose option B? What a stupid [censored]. (Unless of course he really DID have something to hide...)

Blame Bush/Right Wing Conspiracy all you want, but this never happens if Saddam doesn't repeatedly fail to comply with UN resolutions...and for what?

[/ QUOTE ]

At the end though, Saddam did allow weapons inspectors unfettered access, we kept claiming he wasn't making complete disclosures of his WMD and thats why he was violating UN Resolutions. However, it looks like he was making complete disclosures, since we haven't found any.

[/ QUOTE ]

he never allowed unfettered access as far as i recall

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it was better to allow the attack to take place

[/ QUOTE ]

Still doesn't explain why the fleet wasn't at least put on alert, this would not have tipped the Japanese off.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes it does and yes it would I think...

I am not saying the CT on this is right or wrong - in fact I'm just pointing out that there exists a perfectly rational explanation as to why the attack was allowed to continue the way it did - with NO conspiracy theory needed at all.

PH was a Japanese sneak attack - it's not much of a sneak attack if the ships are on high alert at some odd time of the day and pick off the attack planes as they come in - they might well have thought .oO(they knew we were coming - our codes have been broken - lets change them) had the fleet not been totally surprised by the attack. AFAIK the powers in charge of the US military thought that the knowledge of future Japanese military movements was worth the cost of the fleet that was attacked there, and even warning them was too risky.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

[ QUOTE ]
he never allowed unfettered access as far as i recall

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The thing I've never really understood is how the administration got away with telling us what a grave danger Saddam Hussein was in the wake of Hussein's regime falling apart as soon as we went in. If Hussein's military capabilities were such a danger to us, why didn't he use those capabilities to save his regime? The "war" was a cakewalk for us and Husssein himself was found hiding in a hole.

What makes no sense is that a man who was a threat to our way of life, and who knew for months that his country would be attacked, had so little defense for the invasion. What sense would hiding his weapons in Syria make? When would he be able to use them?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand Saddam's thought process at all.

It looks to me like he was faced with choosing between:

A) Let the inspectors in, keep regime/palaces etc., after all, you don't have any WMD's to hide anyway right?

B) Don't let the inspectors in, lose regime/palaces etc., have large weapons fired in your direction, end up hiding in hole.

So why in the [censored] did Saddam choose option B? What a stupid [censored]. (Unless of course he really DID have something to hide...)

Blame Bush/Right Wing Conspiracy all you want, but this never happens if Saddam doesn't repeatedly fail to comply with UN resolutions...and for what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Saddam originally had himself a bit of a Catch-22. His actual choices were:

1. Keep up the pretense of having WMD's and use diplomatic support (China, France and Russian) <u>to hopefully</u> block off a US invasion, while at the same time being able to represent an adequately equipped military to hold off the Iranian threat; or

2. Allow weapons inspectors to come in and declare no WMDs and have no credibility of representing to the Iranians that Iraq's military was equipped to handle the threat.

This was Saddam's original option, but once the US began to amass its armies and begin supply chains, it shortly became apparent that his "options" were really the following FUBAR situation...

The USA is concerned about the Iranian influence in the Middle East and is going to invade Iraq no matter what so that the US can maintain a military presence in order to deter that threat.

Re: Do you really believe Bush Lied? It makes no sense.
 

Which is directly analogous to the absurd statement that Islamic Jihad terrorizes Israel to enforce UN resolutions.

Israel, Turkey and Morocco are the world's most flagrant violators of UN security council resolutions. Those laws cannot be enforced against because the U.S. won't tolerate substantial UN interfence with its clients, regardless of right or wrong, legal or illegal. So the notion that the U.S. went to war to bolster the authority of the UN can't be reconciled with plain facts.

Also, Iraq's supposed violations of those resolutions all related to WMD with which, we now know, Iraq had substanially and materially complied. So "enforcing UN resolutions" is just another way of falsely claiming Iraq had WMD. The U.S. further had no authority or right to enforce any UN resolution against Iraq, much less the right to use mass violence under this pretext. As we know, the Security Council refused to endorse Bush's war plans, putting him in the class of criminals we hanged at Nuremburg.

That the U.S. was willing to slaught innocents by the tens of thousands because international law compelled it is among the most hypocritical and easily refutable arguments of the war apologist camp.