Bush Administration made 935 false statements because of the Iraq War

[FriendlyFire]

I don't get it...

US Military Dumping WMDs as close as 15km offshore and to a lesser extend in rivers.

 

[MobBoss]

Isn't that a given? The accusation is Bush and his cronies lied about WMD and here you are arguing that shells from the 80s is WMD... If you're right, the Bushies are exonerated on that claim, true? The problem is, we didn't go to war over shells from the 80s, we went to war because Saddam had reconstituted a WMD program, including nukes. Thats the false claim used to get us into the war...

No, actually these are the reason that were given for us to go to war:

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.

Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[citation needed]
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."

Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.

The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

 

[MobBoss]

It aint semantics, a declaration of war TELLS the Prez to wage war, these phony authorizations let the Prez decide if he will wage war.

The US Congress Iraq War Resolution isnt a phony authorization. Its a public law enacted by Congress.

You said the UN didn't condemn our invasion and that means we had the UN's implicit permission. Or what are ya saying? You keep backing away from your arguments.

Note the bold. I never alledged anything of the sort. I stated that as a body the UN never did vote to condemn the invasion, which is true, however, your the one that took that comment further than it was intended. Not me.

I dont back away from my arguements. I back away from your incorrect interpretation of them. Big difference.

 

[bathsheba666]

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
The weapons inspectors were happy to carry on - reference Hans Blix

Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[citation needed]
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Misrepresented intelligence - lies


Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Misrepresented intelligence - lies


Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Strawman - entirely reasonable behavior on Iraq's part

Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
Strawman

Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Misrepresented intelligence - lies

The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Misrepresented intelligence - lies

Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
Regime change - Illegal under international law

Bush and Blair should be put on trial.

 

[MobBoss]

Bush and Blair should be put on trial.

Uhm....Nope.

 

[bathsheba666]

Uhm....Nope.

Carry on snipping out the inconvenient parts of posts you're "quoting" and very soon you won't even be able to manage one sentence.

 

[Gibsie]

Well as that was the only part of your post that MobBoss actually condemned, then that means he was okay with the rest of it (As with the UN and the war). Glad to see he wouldn't be dumb enough to claim that all those factors he cited were valid and presented honestly (Although some are very valid, and indeed should have been the focus).

 

[Merkinball]

Errr...

For the second time in this thread. Falsehoods and bad intel does not constitute a lie.

 

[bathsheba666]

Errr...

For the second time in this thread. Falsehoods and bad intel does not constitute a lie.

I'd be interested in your distinction between a falsehood and a lie.

Wrt bad intel, if intel asserts x, and politicians report x, then I guess we blame the agents.

However, if intel reports x, and administration underlings rewrite it to state y,
then we're in the realm of lies.

This happened in the UK, and so in the US also, unless they weren't sharing info.


---

Just searching back. Is this it?

Stop confusing lies with falsehoods. One is a pajorative, the other is truth.

This seems to me a comment on style rather than substance. What do you mean?

 

[Merkinball]

No, it's actually entirely substantive.

You're wrong on your estimation of the intel, in the worst case scenario that is. In one case, congress got the exact same info that Bush saw. And from what I understand, the congressional intelligence group saw EVERYTHING that Bush saw, and then reported it on to the rest of congress. The worst case scenario is that Bush was given a bunch of intelligence, omitted stuff that didn't fit the mold of what he wanted, and passed the rest of it onto congress.

Even still, what he gave congress ultimately ends up being bad intelligence.

In no way is it a lie. Disengenous. Sure. But he didn't lie.

 

[bathsheba666]

I see, so transforming

"We have no evidence of weapons of mass destruction"

into

"We have evidence of weapons of mass destruction"

- is only a minor edit, and retains the majority of the original reported wording?
I'm not convinced.

 

[Merkinball]

I see, so transforming

"We have no evidence of weapons of mass destruction"

into

"We have evidence of weapons of mass destruction"

- is only a minor edit, and retains the majority of the original reported wording?
I'm not convinced.

Yeah, except this isn't what happened...

 

[Gibsie]

All this talk of lies is a simple red herring (Not helped by sensationalistic journalism). Did Bush lie? He may have, he may not have. If you're willing to accept he really is that dumb and that the intelligence services were somehow trying to lead Bush into war with Iraq, then you may well believe he didn't lie. If you do think he was lying, that's fine too, that's your opinion, and there's no 100% proof either way at present, so it's a personal opinion. The issue is not lies. It's honesty. And regardless of whether there were bonifide pants-on-fire lies, Bush was not honest in the slightest. End of discussion.

 

[Berzerker]

The US Congress Iraq War Resolution isnt a phony authorization. Its a public law enacted by Congress.

The Constitution does not say Congress shall have the power to let the Prez decide if we go to war. Its phony because it aint constitutional...

Note the bold. I never alledged anything of the sort. I stated that as a body the UN never did vote to condemn the invasion, which is true, however, your the one that took that comment further than it was intended. Not me.

I dont back away from my arguements. I back away from your incorrect interpretation of them. Big difference.

Why did you tell us the UN never condemned the invasion? I took your comment to its logical conclusion because you ran away from it. The UN didn't authorize the war and you say the UN didn't condemn it either. So whats yer point? The absence of condemnation = implicit approval? You go right ahead and "interpret" what you said for us.

No, actually these are the reason that were given for us to go to war:

Were you asleep during the State of the Union when Bush was telling us Saddam had reconstituted his WMD program, including nukes? We were given lots of reasons (everything but the kitchen sink), but we did not invade because of rusting shells from the 80s with "traces" of mustard gas or sarin.

 

[MobBoss]

Carry on snipping out the inconvenient parts of posts you're "quoting" and very soon you won't even be able to manage one sentence.

It only takes one sentence to disagree with you. /shrug.

Well as that was the only part of your post that MobBoss actually condemned, then that means he was okay with the rest of it (As with the UN and the war). Glad to see he wouldn't be dumb enough to claim that all those factors he cited were valid and presented honestly (Although some are very valid, and indeed should have been the focus).

Dont attempt to misrepresent my position. I am not 'ok' with his view on the issues and directly disagree with him on all of them. Purposefully misquoting another users position like this is against forum rules.

 

[MobBoss]

Why did you tell us the UN never condemned the invasion?

Because another poster had alledged that they had.

/sheesh. Follow the convo dude.

I took your comment to its logical conclusion because you ran away from it.

No, as usual, you took my comment out of context. You are very good at that.

The UN didn't authorize the war and you say the UN didn't condemn it either. So whats yer point?

God, are you truly this dense? My point was to refute another poster who said the UN did condemn the war.

Were you asleep during the State of the Union when Bush was telling us Saddam had reconstituted his WMD program, including nukes?

No, but I have enough intelligence to comprehend its not the only reason we went to war. Apparently some people dont. /shrug.

We were given lots of reasons (everything but the kitchen sink), but we did not invade because of rusting shells from the 80s with "traces" of mustard gas or sarin.

Did I say we did?

 

[JollyRoger]

Dont attempt to misrepresent my position. I am not 'ok' with his view on the issues and directly disagree with him on all of them. Purposefully misquoting another users position like this is against forum rules.

I've seen you take more positons than the porn star of the year on these matters depending on which angle you were arguing from. I don't see how anybody could misrepresent your position since you've held all of them.

 

[Berzerker]

Because another poster had alledged that they had.

/sheesh. Follow the convo dude.

Had what? Condemned the invasion? They did, you just argued that Kofi's personal opinion doesn't represent the UN's opinion. Well, it wasn't his personal opinion, he represented the UN and was speaking on behalf of most of its members.

God, are you truly this dense? My point was to refute another poster who said the UN did condemn the war.

But the UN did condemn the invasion, the fact nothing official got passed is irrelevant. The UN cant do squat without the major powers.

No, but I have enough intelligence to comprehend its not the only reason we went to war. Apparently some people dont. /shrug.

You're missing the point, buried rusting shells from the 80s war with Iran was not a reason we were given. We were told Saddam had reconstituted a WMD program, including nukes. Now, you wanna argue that aint really why we invaded, go right ahead.

Did I say we did?

Did we invade over WMD? Did you claim these chemical traces in old shells are WMD? Wasn't this your proof of WMD?

 

[Berzerker]

I've seen you take more positons than the porn star of the year on these matters depending on which angle you were arguing from. I don't see how anybody could misrepresent your position since you've held all of them.

now thats funny, I dont care who you are

 

[MobBoss]

Had what? Condemned the invasion? They did, you just argued that Kofi's personal opinion doesn't represent the UN's opinion. Well, it wasn't his personal opinion, he represented the UN and was speaking on behalf of most of its members.

Sorry, but thats simply not true. Kofi Annan =/= the UN. And here you say, 'they did'. By all means show me the resolution that specifically calls the Iraq war illegal and condemns it.

But the UN did condemn the invasion

Totally and utterly false.

the fact nothing official got passed is irrelevant. The UN cant do squat without the major powers.

Again false. The general assembly could indeed pass a non-binding resolution calling the war illegal without the 'major powers'.

Bottom line, the fact that nothing official got passed is ENTIRELY relevant. Your stating that the UN condemned it is the UTTER ABSENCE of anything official is just beyond idiotic and ultimately more kool-aid drinking denial of reality.

You're missing the point, buried rusting shells from the 80s war with Iran was not a reason we were given. We were told Saddam had reconstituted a WMD program, including nukes. Now, you wanna argue that aint really why we invaded, go right ahead.

No, I have stated repeatedly that there was no 'single' reason we invaded.

Apparently you have a problem with truth and reality.

/oh well.