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.

 

Lying about Iraq?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Below are some examples of rhetoric of the president and key administration officials about Iraq, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." - the President]

hobbsonline.blogspot.com...


Please take the time to follow the link because it details not just the culpability of the President but also the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, his National Security Adviser, and prominent Senators who supported the President. You may think you know the whole story but, ...



mod edit in title. Was formerly called Bush s lies, when in fact the quote was attributed to Clinton

[edit on 28-8-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Keep blaming each other. But please, don't do anything about it. Just accept it, turn on the TV, and watch NASCAR, WCW or Desperate Housewives.

This message was brought to you by TOTOL.
(All Rights Reserved 2001-2005. Those On The Outside Laughing®)










[edit on 28-8-2005 by cargo]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by cargo
This message was brought to you by TOTOL.
(All Rights Reserved 2001-2005. Those On The Outside Laughing®)


You wont be laughing if all of a sudden america does become a dictatorship, those on the outside will suffer the brunt of it.









[edit on 28-8-2005 by cargo]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 04:33 AM
link   
Yeah. And there is absolutely nothing that I can do about any of it. Except look on and laugh. As for bearing the brunt, what else is there to do except say "Bring it on"?

We are all screwed.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Here we go again. Proof Bush lied. Proof
Bush was behind the effort to go to war in
Iraq despite the fact that Iraq had no
Weapons programs in place in Iraq. It is
puzzling to me that these efforts against
Bush have been so successful, because of
the fact that for them to be true one has
to overlook many easily verifiable facts
that argue Bush was not a liar and that he
was right on target.

These various proofs that Bush lied have
several problems. I won't go into all of
them but I will give some of the most glaring
problems the "Bush Lied" guys did not answer.

My analysis of how the matter played out, from
following it closely all during the unfolding
is as follows:

From shortly after the first gulf war up
until about 2000 Iraq had successfully stonewalled
UN inspectors and no inspections were being
carried out. At that time certain people
in the Bush camp were of the opinion that
inspections were not going to work, because
they had not worked during many years of
effort. Bush and Cheney were in the camp
that inspections were not going to work.
Others such as Colin Powell were in the camp
to get one more UN effort made. As it was
debated, one more effort was decided to be
made. As a result of this effort with
the UN, inspectors returned to Iraq and it
appeared for a short time that inspections were
working.

One problem became apparent though during
these inspection efforts. That one problem
was that UN inspectors were not given access
to interview Saddams nuclear scientists. Saddam
absolutely stonewalled the UN inspectors in
allowing interview of his scientists. Saddam
refused Hans Blix the interview of his scientists
outside of his country. This was the key point, highly
covered on all the news that resulted in breakdown of UN
weapons inspections. The UN inspections did not fail
because Saddam was uncooperative concerning gas and
chemical weapons. Inspections failed precisely because
Saddam refused interview of his nuclear scientists by
the UN inspectors. Several trips were made by Colin Powell
and Dick Cheney to get neighbors to convince Saddam that
he had to comply with the interview of his nuclear
scientists and yet Saddam stonewalled. This one more
effort that Colin Powell had advocated was attempted
in good faith by all concerned. Colin Powell himself
made several trips trying to get other leaders to
influence Saddam to comply. All these efforts failed.

When Saddam stonewalled on interview of his nuclear
scientists the people in the Bush camp that believed
war was going to be required were further prompted to
believe that Iraq was truly hiding a nuclear weapons
program. Now at this point, it was probably true
that the US had no proof that Saddam was hiding a
nuclear weapons program, just waiting for the day
that it could be reactivated, with no more UN attention
being given to it. Yes, at this point you could say
that the Iraqi effort to keep the program secret was
successful and that there was no proof available to
Bush that there were nuclear programs available.
So you might be able to make the argument that Bush
was acting irrational and putting us on a war course
regardless of proof, and therefore was lying.

On the other hand Bush was convinced that the program
was there with no current physical proof. His only
proof at that point was that Saddam would not let
his scientists be interviewed outside of Iraqi control.
So when Bush stated back then that Saddam was working
covertly on a weapons program, I suppose you could
have said it was a lie, since no physical proof was
available to the contrary. Still you have to look
at the facts as they played out.

If Bush was absolutely determined to go to war regardless
of the facts, and many of these people who try to sell
the "Bush Lied" story are making exactly this point.
They site that memo (not written by Bush) that someone
put forth that said something like "Bush will manufacture
the evidence to justify the attack". This story has
cropped up many times in the "Bush Lied" story. Evidence
proves beyond a doubt though that this can't be. That
evidence is "Colin Powells successful effort for one more
UN resolution". If Bush was going to go to war regardless
of any evidence against Iraq, then why on earth would
he have agreed to this final effort by the UN to resolve
the issue. If UN inspections were successful, then any
Bush plan to go to war would fail right before the eyes
of the world. How on earth was Bush going to go to war
if it became apparent to the world that UN inspections
were working and that Iraq was not in violation?

The very fact that this final UN effort was made and
approved by Bush is absolute evidence that he was
not trying to go to war without any basis. His basis
was, in fact, the fear of nuclear weapons in the hands
of rogue states. This was the key point, highly
covered on all the news that resulted in breakdown of UN
weapons inspections.

The next fact that surfaced in the news with millions
witnessing it was the final few days before attack began
into Iraq. One final ultimatum was given Iraq before
fighting began. That ultimatum was, "Saddam and his
two sons must leave Iraq or we will attack". If Bush
was going to go to war regardless of the facts then
why would he have given the opportunity to avoid the
war?

These facts were witnessed by millions and are
incontrovertible. Yet the "Bush Lied" people never address
how these things could have happened if Bush was following
the script which they say he was with his plan to attack
regardless of any weapons programs.

And now for the smoking gun.

As it turned out, the Iraqis were hiding their nuclear
program in violation of the UN and were waiting to
set it up again with relaxing of UN efforts.

In the book "The Bomb in My Garden" by Mahdi Obeidi
he details the various things buried in his garden
awaiting the UN attention and inspections to go
away. Among those things buried were:
(1) Over 200 booklets detailing every piece of the
centrifuges and how to assemble them.
(2) Four prototypes of the most highly advanced centrifuge
components needed for their assembly.
In Mahdi's words, "These were the most valuable building
blocks for WMD that Iraq ever produced"

Also in this book (page 10) are details of Iraq's
threats against their nuclear scientist concerning
any cooperation with UN inspectors.

This book was copyrighted in 2004, and I first became
aware of it as the author was interviewed on CNN,
I believe about Oct of 2004 and it is available from
Amazon.com. It is very interesting.

Everything I have said above was viewed by millions.
It was not some obscure thing uncovered in a supposed
memo. Because of the fact that all the above information
was widely witnessed and is easily verified, it puzzles
me that people are still trying to sell this story
that Bush lied. In actual fact he might have lied at
some point when saying "Iraq is secretly trying to
develop nuclear weapons". You can find that sort of
phrase in speeches made in the era leading up to the
Iraq invasion. You can say he was lying if he said
that with no proof. On the other hand, maybe he felt
that Saddam stonewalling was proof. If he did read
it that way, history has proven him to be correct.
Saddam actually was hiding a secret nuclear program
just as Bush had said. So was he lying?

I think you can make a much better case that the ones
that are lying are the very ones that say Bush was
lying. One of their arguments is that Iraq had no
gas weapons found. Well, was that a Bush lie? Everyone
believed that Saddam had them, including most of his
Muslim neighbors. Mubarrak of Egypt cautioned Tommy
Franks before the invasion that Saddam had gas
weapons, for example. How come Bush is singled out
as the one that lied about these weapons.

No body is saying Mubarrak lied.
No body is saying Tommy Franks lied.
No body is saying Colin Powell lied.
No body is saying the CIA lied.
No body is saying Norm Scwartzkof lied.
No body is saying Bill Clinton lied.

Yet all these above had said that Iraq had gas weapons.
Why is Bush singled out for having believed this
supposed same lie that was forwarded by all those
others.

It is pretty easy to figure out that a lot of people
are singling Bush out because they want to discredit
him.

In actual fact though these gas weapons should not
even have been brought into the argument. The
reason is; they were not what brought about
the failure of UN inspections. The UN inspections
failed specifically on the nuclear question. Remember
Bush agreed to Colin Powell's plea that UN be
tried one more time and Bush bought it. He bought
it entirely, but as he feared all along the UN
effort failed. It failed because Saddam stonewalled
the UN inspectors just as Bush probably figured
that he would.

Facts proved that Saddam was a liar, not Bush.

Bush proved to be right on target.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   


Bush proved to be right on target.


Oh yeah, you can just count the weapons that were found cant you?

After we were told that there were all sorts of modile cheimcal weapon trucks and underground facilities and tonnes of anthrax and botulism the best you can do is a few leaflets?

The governments of the USA and the UK lied without mercy to try and sell this invasion. We were promised an armaggedon of chemical and bio weapons in Iraq. We got a decimated third world army from the 1980's.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Some people just never give up trying to twist
the truth to their perversion of it.

This response:
===================
Oh yeah, you can just count the weapons that were found cant you?
===================
This is a perfect example of someone trying to twist
these facts. If you go through my above covering
of the facts it was never said: That the weapons
existed. It was specifically said that Saddam
was hiding this development program. It was specifically
pointed out how the UN efforts backed up completely the
policy that Bush was trying to eliminate those programs.
It was specifically told how Bush approving this
call to the UN proved he did not have a prepositioned
plan to attack Iraq for "no reason". It specially
documented how UN inspections failed because Saddam
was hiding a nuclear weapons program.

These facts did not in anyway try to say that the weapons were
there.

Yet after all these facts are laid out this individual tries
to pretend that Bush lied because no weapons were found.

Sorry, but this will never refute anything that was said
in my post and what was said in my post were all things
witnessed by millions that were easily verifiable. Also
these things verify the fact that Bush did not lie.

So deal with it.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   
GREAT posts MajorCee!


Keep it up, and you might have my WATS vote!



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   
If you had bothered to go further into the cited link, you'd find out who really said the quote in the first post:

Who said these things? You need to know, because the American Left says they are all lies. They were said, respectively, by President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Defense Secretary William Cohen, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Sen. Tom Daschle and Sen. John Kerry. Of course, that was back when Clinton was ineffectually bombing Iraq.


So, tell me, who's the liar here?



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Agreed, DTOM.
Despite the Democrats continued rhetoric of "we were mislead," they were looking at what anyone else in their position was looking at: real tangible evidences, and had so for years prior to Bush entering office.

If Bush is lying, so are they, straight and simple. Be sure to heed the dates of the citations. Amazing that now they are saying they were mislead, that they were decieved by the Bush administration, etc. Were they mislead or decieved in the 90s? Early 2000, prior to 9/11?
Dems on Iraq






seekerof

[edit on 28-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Awesome DTM
.

But this is a prime example of the things people are pulling these days. Yeah, we catch them on this one and that one, but they continue to do it so often that it eventually just catches on and sinks in as the truth.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Sorry, but if you read all the pre war 'intellegence' then we were not promised a few documents that give Saddam the ability to restart his programme one day, we were given all sorts of stories, Uranium from Nigeria, the mobile weapon vans.

We were told over and over again that Iraq was a clear and present danger, brimming with chemical weapons. Anybody care to deny this? Anyone care to point out the weapons that could annihilate Cyprus in 45 minutes?

We got nothing of any substance. If some old documents and a few bits of centrifuge justify a war that has killed tens of thousands then something is really wrong.

Could Saddam have built himself a nuclear arsenal while under such surveillance, given the size of thef facilities needed? Any massive concentration of consturction vehicles in one location would have been noticed and investgated ASAP.

We were lied to, we were told time and time again that Iraq was really dangerous, that it had links with Al-Quiada. None of this was true.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
We were lied to, we were told time and time again that Iraq was really dangerous, that it had links with Al-Quiada. None of this was true.


Your right, but it is not Bush that lied, it was those people who sayed, stated, and continually preached such prior to Bush coming to office, or did you even bother to hit the link I provided?

Amazing that people call for the truth, and yet, when the truth is presented and given, the political and ideological blinders come on...






seekerof



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 06:18 AM
link   
I remember a certain G. W Bush refering to Uranium from Niger in a speach. Even though very few people in the intellegence community were happy with the info.

But that wasnt a lie because.....



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
We were lied to, we were told time and time again that Iraq was really dangerous, that it had links with Al-Quiada. None of this was true.


Your right, but it is not Bush that lied, it was those people who sayed, stated, and continually preached such prior to Bush coming to office


"Hey, her pants were already off & she was still unconcious before I even did anything".....is that the above logic stream, Seek?


You know, we have the receipt for every one of the Tomahawks........where are all the receipts for this Trillion dollar boondoggle? Hell, where's an accurate death count!?!?

[edit on 30-8-2005 by Bout Time]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Like I said, you can't handle the truth

Some people just never give up trying to twist
the truth to their perversion of it.

This response:
===================

I remember a certain G. W Bush referring to Uranium
from Niger in a speech. Even though very few people
in the intelligence community were happy with the info.

===================
This is a perfect example of someone trying to deflect
attention away from the facts I laid out.


You go through my logic covering the facts as it as
was laid out the specifics of how the war transpired
and how all these milestones were witnessed by
millions. If you can show where any of this is
wrong then you can substantiate your position.

However the best you can do is say, "I remember a
certain G. W Bush referring to Uranium from Niger in
a speech. Even though very few people in the intelligence
community were happy with the info."

You have no case. I can give you the date time and
location of the when Iraq acquired the technology
for their centrifuges and when they were first
successful at enriching uranium and when Saddam
ordered the immediate speed up of their nuclear
program to be used in the gulf war. I can give
you this information because it has all been laid
out by their top scientist in charge of their
uranium enrichment program.

I have laid out the exact facts that prove Bush
was not lying and the best you can do is say
"I remember Bush making a speech that someone
was not happy with."

Bush was telling the truth, as proven in those
facts I laid out.

Deal with it.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorCee
I can give you the date time and
location of the when Iraq acquired the technology
for their centrifuges and when they were first
successful at enriching uranium and when Saddam
ordered the immediate speed up of their nuclear
program to be used in the gulf war.



And why didn't they remove him then? Why wait 15 years?
Why all of a sudden connect these dots to 'terrorist' bombings of the wtc, a hijacked plane in penn, and the pentagon?

Your telling me you would rather have the military go after sadam for making uranium, go after sadam when he had nothing to do with the atrocities in 2001, and start a war in Iraq, when they could of kept the war on terror going on in Afganistan??? Afterall thats why they went there after the attacks... to fight terrorism..

They say to keep the terrorists in Iraq, but why couldn't they keep Afganistan as the 'base' ??

Sadam was painted with a brush to justify taking him out.. They should of taken him out back during the gulf war, as you say that's when he was compiling all his wmd's to 'use in the gulf war' and on top of that it's when he gassed his own people.. not in 2001...

no correlation to 2001 murders... As seekerof says

"Amazing that people call for the truth, and yet, when the truth is presented and given, the political and ideological blinders come on"

Indeed... me no liberal, me no republican, me just talking politics and asking questions ok.. so before you stereotype and call me a libtard, i'm setting the record straight...
now flame away.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   
TL,

Even if we should have taken Saddam out way back when we had the chance, is it not a good thing that we took him out now anyway? Should we have left him in power? The reason we didn't take him out in the 90's is because we were convinced that U.N. sanctions would do the trick... The way I see it is: If we were able to take him out back then, we should have, but we didn't then, so we did it now. And that's a good thing in my mind.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Cee, you have shown that Iraq had the potential to one day restart its weapons programme. Provided that all you need for nuclear weapon production is a few centrifuges. There were no buildings to house these in, no sources of uranium. The idea that with a few centrifuges Saddam could restart his nuclear project is a daft one, huge resources are needed, resources Iraq hasnt had since the first gulf war.

We were assured that there were so many weapons and Saddam was an immediate danger. You didnt answer my question about the weapons that were able to hit Cyprus. You didnt explain what happened to the mobile chemical weapon labs. Instead you cling to the idea that these centrifuges are damning evidence in themselves.

I believe we were lied to about Iraq. You have ignored my point about the uranium claim, you ignored the lies about a connection with Al-Quiada. Do some centrifuges buried in a garden with some pamphlets really justify a war?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join