It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About The Conflict In Iraq

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   
www.rightwingnews.com...

1) George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This is a charge that has been repeated ad nauseum by opponents of the war, but the claim that Bush "lied" about stockpiles of WMDs doesn't hold up to the least bit of scrutiny.

Once you understand one crucial fact, that numerous prominent Democrats with access to intelligence data also openly declared and obviously believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, it becomes nearly impossible for a rational person to believe that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. We're not talking about small fry or just proponents of the war either. The aforementioned Democrats include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Robert Byrd, Henry Waxman, Tom Daschle, and Nancy Pelosi among many, many others. Just to hammer the point home, here's a quote from the 800 pound gorilla of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, that was made on Oct 8, 2002:


Related columns you may also wish to read:

WMD Stockpiles Or No Stockpiles: 11 Reasons Why We Were Right To Hit Iraq
Rewriting History To Attack Bush On Iraq
Why We Invaded Iraq


Post edited to remove extremely long and excessive quote from source.


[edit on 11-7-2005 by Thomas Crowne]




posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   


1) George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This is a charge that has been repeated ad nauseum by opponents of the war, but the claim that Bush "lied" about stockpiles of WMDs doesn't hold up to the least bit of scrutiny


Bush said they were there, we didn't find anything, not a piece of lint. This either makes Bush a liar, or the biggest buffoon of the Western World.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   
u should blame the CIA for many mistakes that embarrasse a president. im sure we saw the failure to detect the missile launch back in 98 by North Korea, the failure to detect India's nuke test, bombing of the Chinese embassy based on old maps
. failure to detect the bombin of Cole in 2000, failure to detect the embassy attacks in 98, told Clinton that the pharmacy in Sudan is linked to Osama. mostly its the CIA's fault these days instead of the presidents.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
If I say there is life in outer space, and there isn't, am I a liar?

If I say that there was no God, and after I die, I meet him, am I a liar?

"Lying" implies a deliberate act stating a definite falsehood. There was no definitive answer until after the fact.

He didn't lie, he was dead wrong, along with the rest of the world. So, call him a buffon if you will, but not a liar.


As for Iraqi casualty counts, is there an official UN figure? an official Iraqi Figure? an official Red Cross figure? And, I always wondered how many insurgents were included in this figure...

[edit on 7/11/2005 by soulforge]



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Man you have to be kidding me. This post is complete rubbish. Yes George Lied about WMD's in Iraq, trying to turn this into a partisan issue demonizing Democrats is silly, but hell yes Bush lied, where have you been for the last six years?
As to the Iraqi Casualties, some of those high end estimates come from the Red Cross and other international entities who have no real political agenda, your picking a bad apple and damning the whole tree with it. Just a little FYI, there are people in Iraq that haven't had clean water or electricity since the bombs starting falling, how many people is that killing? Depleted Uranium?
As to Bush Claiming Iraq was involved with 9-11, uh yeah dude, that was the first 'assumption' that was fed to the American Media lest you forget Bush's push to associate Iraq with 9-11. Ask yourself this, if Iraq wasn't supposed to be involved with 9-11, then what the hell did we invade them for? Ever hear of a man named Clarke? Bush told his own staff to push the Iraqi connection to 9-11, unless you want to call Tenet a liar as well.


The war in Iraq was actually planned by people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz

Why then my ignorant friend were there maps of Iraq layed out on the table at the energy policy meeting chaired by Cheney himself prior to 9-11?
The fact that Bush co. had plans to invade Iraq is beyond dispute.
You want to talk about ties to terrorism? Heh, look no further than your own television set. The Cia was meeting with Osama Bin Laden a few weeks beofre 9-11 in Dubai, the man that wire Atta $100,000 was meeting with Senate Intelligence Committee members the morning of... The only WMD that we know for sure Sadaam had were the ones we still had the recipts for.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say your post is complete rubbish adn I don't really want to waste my time drawing a picture you are not likely to see anyway. You are literally quoting Bush's speeches in some cases as though that is some kind of reliable source for information... Man oh man. Wake up dude, you have been lied to, which is hardly as disconcerting as the fact that you have swallowed them hook, line and sinker. Iraq posed no threat to anyone, over a decade of UN inpsections, intense international scrutiny, and a prior Gulf War which was estimated to have destroyed well over 90% of thier military capabilities. The fualty intelligence which built the 'case' for war was MANDATED, not gathered.



[edit on 11-7-2005 by twitchy]



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Nathraq, I have no doubt that you have made strong assertions that were found to be incorrect.

Are you a liar, or do you share the baffoon crown with Shrub?

Me? Of course I've been wrong. But I am neither a liar or a baffoon. I know better than to think that just because one is incorrect, one is anything more than human, I'm just applying your rules to you.

Excellent post but it'll do no good. I've pointed all these things out, but when the mind is welded shut by hate, no amount of fact will break it open.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Yeah, it doesn't much matter who said they were there. The fact was, Saddam's WMD programs had been degrading since the Gulf War, and were even in much worse condition than they had been. Any intelligence saying Saddam's WMD programs were advancing were quite simply bs. There couldn't have been any such compelling intel, because it simply wasn't true! It wouldn't matter if Republicans, Democrats, or if George Washington himself came up out of the grave to say Saddam had them.

On point 2, you should mention that it isn't clear exactly how many Iraqi civilians have died as a matter of fact, because the US has been discouraging such counts. They put it best themselves "We don't do body counts." Civilian deaths are more around 10,000 based on current estimates as reported by the BBC, those figures being modest. The UK has said they will "look into" the situation. No serious investigations into this have been done, because, as I've said, the US has discouraged body counts on innocents thus far.

On number 3, though they may have never said Saddam was in any way responsible, they didn't have to. They simply bat around 9/11 here and there so liberally that you forget who actually did it. In speeches for justifying the reasons for going into Iraq, I can bet you GW mentioned 9/11 time after time after time after time after time. A connection is established in the mind, a sort of association, despite GW having never actually claimed it outright. September 11th has just been a big point of war propoganda ever since it took place.

On number 4, it's not exactly obscure knowledge that Bush wanted to go to Iraq even before 9/11. That's no big revelation. He was just able to conveniently do it much more easily after 9/11, by, as I've said, spattering around 9/11 in his speeches here and there until you might as well think Saddam did it all. There's no refuting 9/11 was used as a propoganda aid for this war, which was an earlier goal of GW. Left/right isn't any justification, either. This war, as any war, sucks big a, and was quite pointless.

On number 5, the US has harbored terrorists. We've funded them. We put Osama in power. What has Saddam done? The only evident thing he has done with al Qaeda is given some of their members a place to stay and talked with them. They have never agreed, according to any intelligence, to do anything as to aid one another. As far as any other terrorist organizations, Iraq again would not exactly take the cake as the leader in this field. If the Bush Admin was truly concerned about this, they'd spend more time hunting al Qaeda in Afghanistan.


While there may not be evidence that Saddam and Al-Qaeda cooperated in attacks on the United States, the evidence that Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Al-Qaeda worked together is absolutely undeniable.


No evidence of them helping each other at all! If you read the whole 9/11 Commission statement, it says rather clearly that there was never any evidence of any collaboration between the two on anything. They met, and agreed, on several occasions, not to work together. This is all from CIA intel itself, used as a resource by the 9/11 Commission. You can hardly argue with CIA intel itself, and using the Bush Admin as a credible source is no better than using Osama as a credible source for information. Bush and Cheney both are on the record numerous times saying things that are misleading at best in favor of their own actions.

The truth is, as you yourself admitted, there is absolutely no evidence of any mutual relationship, of any sort, between al Qaeda and Iraq.

What about the Yellow Cake from Nigeria? Even though that was another big load of bs that was exposed, I'm surprised you didn't try to argue that as well.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   
You know, I really, really pray for a quick and quiet three years, a captured Bin Laben and Zarqawi, a gradual troop withdrawl in Afganistan and Iraq, and a nice single term Democrat President( hello Hillary), just so I can stop hearing all of the kook conspiracy theories about 9/11 and Iraq.!!!

I mean, why are all of the political conspiracies aimed at the right? I haven't heard a single decent left aimed conspiracy since Clinton/CIA/Mena airport!?!

Am I to assumed that all left wingers are decent, kindhearted, and upstanding citizens of the world?

Heck, I KNOW there are too many crooked right wingers around, and I AM a right winger.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   


I mean, why are all of the political conspiracies aimed at the right? I haven't heard a single decent left aimed conspiracy since Clinton/CIA/Mena airport!?!


Both sides suck. Does that make you feel any more secure?

The right is pushing for war and fascism. The left simply stalls and delays it. That's about the gist of it. If Hillary got into office, which I doubt will happen, there would be less war-mongering and right-wing, fascist nuts out, but the US would be no better of a country for it; only getting worse more gradually. Both sides of the aisle are corrupt.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Sheesh. So much to disagree with, so much to refute. Where to start?

Point #6 caught my eye in particular, so I shall start there.

You are all wet. The Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein despised terrorists and considered them a dangerous element to the stability of their regime. After all, Saddam understood well the power of terrorist assassination: he was involved in just these kinds of activities as early as 1959. When he assumed power, one of the very first things he did was to strengthen his internal security apparatus and purge all those who represented even the remotest threat. The Iraqi government of the 1970's, 1980's, and the 1990's was a fascist regime, and they dealt with terrorists accordingly.

Saddam did believe in subterfuge, when it met his needs. There are some limited instances where the Iraqi government provided very limited assistance and support to a very small number of terrorists. But, those terrorists were exclusively operating against Israel and Jewish targets - not the wealthy western nation to Saddam was shipping his oil and receiving his military arms. Saddam believed in the concept of Pan-Arabia, and the easiest was to incite his Arab neighbors in a common cause (where he could naturally be the leader) was to attack Israel and decry their possession of the Islamic Holy Lands. Most arabs saw this for what is was (Saddam posturing to become a big wheel in the Arab world) and ignored him.

Also, the fact was that most Arab terrorist organizations feared going to Iraq. Saddam was nototrious for his secret police and brutal control of his people, and for his absolute distrust of anyone who represented a threat to him and where not part of his "inside" Tikriti gang. Mainstream terrorist groups often had only two choices for modern Arab countries if they needed a safe refuge; the unpredictable Col. Qadhafy of Libya, or Saddam Huseein in Iraq. Not surprisingly, most chose Libya. They knew that on any given moment, Saddam could wake up one morning, decide that his Palestinian guests were a threat, and have them all rounded up and shot in the dead of the night.

Saddam Huseein courted and protected terrorists when it suited his own political motivations on the Arab world stage, mostly to curry favor with pro-Palestinian supporters and to thumb his nose at the west. However, (prior to Gulf War I) Saddam knew that it would be a dangerous game to actually provide material support to anybody with intentions against actual western powers, on whom he relied for cash and arms. I would not be surprised at all to learn that Saddam secretly provided the CIA and MI5 with intelligence on these organizations that he so openly supported to impress his Arab neighbors.

Saddam truely believed that you keep you friends close, and your enemies even closer. It was in this way he could kill them all the more easily.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
First of all, Im no Dubya fan, but having said that, the points made here arent that far off.

I certainly think that there was some "embelishment" of data and intelligence, but I dont think there were out right lies.

Good post.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Of course Saddam had WMD's. Every year during Bill Clinton's presidency!



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Binary questions about whether Bush & Co. "lied" or "made an error" regarding WMD in Iraq ignore a third possibility, one that I believe is closest to the truth: self-deception. IE, they wanted to believe Iraq had huge WMD stockpiles, so they simply embraced intel that supported this belief, and ignored any that contradicted it, even supressing it.

I would suggest that this kind of self deception (believing what you want to believe) is in fact far more common that outright lying. If we're honest with ourselves, most of us do it a little bit every day, just to get by. People indulge in this behavior both as individuals and in groups, because while still being animals driven by instinctive emotional needs, we are just smart enough to fool ourselves into believing we are rational beings that act on logic.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Nathraq, I have no doubt that you have made strong assertions that were found to be incorrect.

Are you a liar, or do you share the baffoon crown with Shrub?

Me? Of course I've been wrong. But I am neither a liar or a baffoon. I know better than to think that just because one is incorrect, one is anything more than human, I'm just applying your rules to you.

Excellent post but it'll do no good. I've pointed all these things out, but when the mind is welded shut by hate, no amount of fact will break it open.


TC,

The difference is that me, and you, do not have an army of intelligence officers, and billions of dollars at our hands, to try and prove a case for invading another country. With all the assets the CIA has at their hands, one would think they could have gotten at least 15% right. In this case it was 0.00000%.

If this was a criminal court proceeding, and the defense set up their strategy based on research their clerks did, and it was 0.0% correct, then that criminal would have gone to jail.

You still the man, TC. Peace brother.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Of course Saddam had WMD's. Every year during Bill Clinton's presidency!


So, hey! Since the democrats are apparently half-retarded, it's ok for Republicans to be, too.


The only difference is that Clinton never made the mistake of invading to find out for sure. But it doesn't matter. Stop playing the partisan game. You were both wrong. There's no excuse for this war.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
[The right is pushing for war and fascism. The left simply stalls and delays it. That's about the gist of it. If Hillary got into office, which I doubt will happen, there would be less war-mongering and right-wing, fascist nuts out, but the US would be no better of a country for it; only getting worse more gradually. Both sides of the aisle are corrupt.


I find it interesting that the opposite was in force during Vietnam. Kennedy (D), Johnson (D), Nixon (R). Johnson actually escalaleted the war in Vietnam by sending in more troops. Nixon was in office when troops were returning home. War is not partisan, it depends on opportunity and who is in office at the time.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Why then my ignorant friend were there maps of Iraq layed out on the table at the energy policy meeting chaired by Cheney himself prior to 9-11?
The fact that Bush co. had plans to invade Iraq is beyond dispute.
You want to talk about ties to terrorism? Heh, look no further than your own television set. The Cia was meeting with Osama Bin Laden a few weeks beofre 9-11 in Dubai, the man that wire Atta $100,000 was meeting with Senate Intelligence Committee members the morning of... The only WMD that we know for sure Sadaam had were the ones we still had the recipts for.
[edit on 11-7-2005 by twitchy]


Holy crap. I'm sure ferretman will appologize now, twitchy. We had no idea that you had that kind of knowledge.

So, you are one of them, huh?

You were in that meeting with Cheney. And you know for sure that deal with Bin Laden took place. I know you would never be just reading # off the Internet by people that really have no clue has to what is happening themselves. You must have an amazing job running around having all the inside knowledge. How else would you possibly know all that information.... unless your reading it off the Internet (with no real proof of it happening) by other people like you that don't know what they are really talking about either.

[edit on 11-7-2005 by andpau66]



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
this is like the oj case... the glove fits, and the dna is there, yet for some reason people still want to find the bad guy is innocent.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by andpau66
Holy crap. I'm sure ferretman will appologize now, twitchy. We had no idea that you had that kind of knowledge.

So, you are one of them, huh?

You were in that meeting with Cheney. And you know for sure that deal with Bin Laden took place. I know you would never be just reading # off the Internet by people that really have no clue has to what is happening themselves. You must have an amazing job running around having all the inside knowledge. How else would you possibly know all that information.... unless your reading it off the Internet (with no real proof of it happening) by other people like you that don't know what they are really talking about either.

[edit on 11-7-2005 by andpau66]

Do yourself a favor and search these forums for relevant posts by myself and others and find out where I got my information, I'm tired of doing people's homework for them. I stated my position, debunk it, debate it, or move along. Prove me wrong.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The only difference is that Clinton never made the mistake of invading to find out for sure. But it doesn't matter. Stop playing the partisan game. You were both wrong. There's no excuse for this war.


Clinton played the "I'd rather promote the War on Drugs and endless wars in eastern europe" game. There is a perfect excuse. It seems to me that most people have been brain washed by Saddam. At the end of the Gulf War he signed a treaty stating that he could have a limited weapons program which did not include WMD's. Over a ten year period leading up to the war, UN inspectors continuely found his WMD facilities and the WMDs themselves. All Clinton had the courage to do was launch a few missiles at some abonded complexes. Saddam violated his surrendering treaty the same way Hitler did Germany's.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join