Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?

[Psycho4Bud]

For too many years now, left wing morons with support and encouragement from the biased media, have made the following idiotic contribution to the debate about the war on terror, and specifically the Iraq theater:

"Bush lied, Americans died!"

Perhaps he did, but on the other hand-- it turns out that 550 metric tons of uranium yellow cake, the stuff of which "dirty bombs" can be made, have been found in Iraq.
Although there is no "reliable source" to quote on this shocker, we do have a report from the Associated Press which, despite being a wing of the DNC, nevertheless reported the following:

"The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program - a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium - reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

"The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellow cake" - the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment - was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions."

Seattle PI

So, if one is willing to take a risk by believing an AP story, one might conclude that there was indeed yellow cake in Iraq.

One might extrapolate even further and conclude that Bush did not, in fact, lie after all.

Quite apart from the fact that such a lie would make no logical sense, many prominent Democrats have made strong public statements in the past proclaiming their belief that Saddam did indeed have WMD.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is among those who expressed such a belief.

In addition to the new "Queen of Mean," the following leftist luminaries weighed in against Saddam before deciding that George W. Bush was the greater evil:

Ted Kennedy, John Rockefeller, Al Gore, Carl Levin, Patty Murray, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Liberman, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Wesley Clark, Bill Clinton, Tom Daschle, John Edwards, Dick Gephart, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, Tom Larkin, Harry Ford, and Diane Feinstein.

The exact quotes of these political luminaries follow.

Did they all lie?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"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." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002


"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002


Why did all of those Democrats lie?
Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?-borderfirereport.net (http://www.borderfirereport.net/john-w.-lillpop/bush-lied-what-about-that-550-metric-tons-of-yellow-cake-lefty.html)

550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium:rolleyes:.....since Obama claims to be one of the only few that didn't believe in the Iraq war wouldn't that make him a bit out of touch with reality?

Have a good one!:s4:

[dragonrider]

The author of this article is another right-wing wackadoo trying to spin bullshit into gold --- turns out he is lying too.

If you read the AP article that this guy based his report on, it does not say that we have FOUND 550 tons of yellowcake uranium in Iraq, as though it was some kind of surpirse recent discovery or that it somehow vinidcates the lies that Bush used to get us into this mess. It says that this yellowcake was found in 1991 and was safeguarded by the UN at that time. In 2003 it was exactly where it was supposed to be, and there is no evidence that any had been added to the stockpile since it was safeguarded in 1991.

The secrecy that this guy is referring to is not about a secret discovery of yellowcake. The secrecy was about the operation to store and transport it.

Bush lied when he claimed that Iraq had tried to buy more yellowcake from Niger. That was a lie. When Ambassador Joe Wilson exposed that lie, the Bush administration retaliated against Wilson's wife by revealing that she was a CIA agent, thereby ruining her covert identity and putting the lives of her contacts in danger.

This story about a secret operation to transport the yellowcake that everyone knew about since 1991 does not change the fact that Bush lied about Iraq's effort to buy more Yellowcake from Niger. It doesn't change the fact that he put the lives of CIA agents and contacts in jeopardy in order to cover up that lie.

Here is the AP story: AP Exclusive: US removes uranium from Iraq (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107ap_iraq_yellowcake_mission.html)

[Psycho4Bud]

I know...Saddam would have NEVER tried to revive his old plans for a nuke. Takes a LONG TIME to get rid of that much yellow cake...since "91"?

Have a good one!:s4:

[killerweed420]

Sounds like somebody trying to help Bush Have some sort of legacy for his 8 years of lies. Too late. Thats what he is going to be remembered for. That and getting hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed. He just needs to do the right thing and follow Hitler's lead.

[Psycho4Bud]

That and getting hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed. He just needs to do the right thing and follow Hitler's lead.

LOL....the Bush/Hitler thing again. We removed 550 metric tons of yellow cake from a dictator that sponsored terrorism but Bush is Hitler?

Have a good one!:s4:

[killerweed420]

I'm just saying Hitler commited suicide because of his failure. Couldn't we expect the same sort of dedication from Bush?

[GrinKyle]

^^ This is so comical.... if I didn't know any better Psyco was in the bush family....

(Hope u don't take offence, seeing how you support him and what all hes done and hasnt done)

[Psycho4Bud]

^^ This is so comical.... if I didn't know any better Psyco was in the bush family....

(Hope u don't take offence, seeing how you support him and what all hes done and hasnt done)

Now that's a joke! You base this on one issue? Get real! I guess I support 90% of the dems since they were screaming about Saddam before Bush even took office.:rolleyes:

Have a good one!:s4:

[Harry Pot Head]

To do anything nasty with Yellow Cake you would have to prosesse it first Its not that radio active in its natural state just a lot of fear mongering. Can do more damage with a modified microwave oven.

Just for your info Nuclear Chemistry - Uranium Production (http://www.chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-06.htm)

Think i would probably be hit by a bus first :P

Besides I would not trust Bush or Harper in what they say :mad:
My 2 Watts

[8182KSKUSH]

Hey P4B you are just trying to catch hell huh?:)
Fact is Bush did not lie, fact is, there have been multiple instances of our troops coming across all sorts of goodies in Iraq, usually you have to really dig to find these stories or accounts due to the fact that they don't fit in with the whole, "Iraq was such a beautiful, peaceful, blessed place that never did anything to anyone," theory from the radical left, or what most members of this forum consider "mainstream" thought.:D
I think that a thread dedicated to these instances that weren't supposed to have happened would be great. I will get to work.

All that being said, the most important thing to the leftist in this nation isn't that "Bush lied, people died", it's that they need something to say that rhymes! Whether or not it's true is irrelevant, it rhymes and fits on a bumper sticker! That is SUBSTANCE folks!!!!
Although his domestic policies leave a little to be desired, i.e. his massive spending on education, ect....
I really believe that this president will go down in history as a truly great leader. I would rather vote him in for a third term than vote for McCain, although......:jointsmile:
No one really needs to go that far to try and "give" Bush a legacy, time will deliver that to him, and this is not really something that he is after, he's not a democrat. He doesn't care about a legacy, he's not an ego maniac, liberals are just too used to their party leaders mind sets, most republicans that are in office do not fundamentally have that deep desire to be Mr. Popular, they would rather do the right thing than worry about how they are perceived, this I believe is true for Bush as well.

By the way, anyone catch the congress approval rating, it's amazing as much as I hear how dislike Bush is, the DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED CONGRESS in the publics mind apparently is far less liked than Bush. Now that's some funny shit, they gain a majority, and before you know it, America has gotten a cold splash of water in the face and realized just how bad things can really be. :)

[fishman3811]

Kush you just made my night LMAO you really believe Bush will go down in history as a truly great leader OMG stop smoking the weed buddy.....:joint1:

[8182KSKUSH]

Kush you just made my night LMAO you really believe Bush will go down in history as a truly great leader OMG stop smoking the weed buddy.....:joint1:

Glad to hear you got a laugh! At least it's positive! By the way, I love your avatar, makes me smile when I see that squirel fucking the shit out of spider man's ear! :jointsmile:

[Iguana]

Glad to hear you got a laugh! At least it's positive! By the way, I love your avatar, makes me smile when I see that squirel fucking the shit out of spider man's ear! :jointsmile:

History will treat GWB better than it will treat Bill Clinton, but it may well take 50 years for this realization to occur.

[8182KSKUSH]

History will treat GWB better than it will treat Bill Clinton, but it may well take 50 years for this realization to occur.

Of course I don't need to tell you this, but I agree, I just wonder if he will be held accountable for his domestic spending, in light of the greater things that he has done. It's wierd when you think back to the first Bush term, foriegn policy wasn't the big issue, and it was kind of a question. Now of course, looking back he has made the greatest contribution to our nation with regard to our foriegn affairs, while he spent waaaay tooo much on domestic programs. Guess that's what happens when you let Ted Kennedy co write the education reform legislation.
Personally I don't think Bill Clinton did much of anything, there really isn't any one thing that comes to mind that he actually did, although others will argue that the "economy prospered" during his term, however he had very little to do with anything in regards to positive progress in our economy. On the other hand Bush did do some good here, I think that it will be overshadowed by his achievments abroad, and his rampant spending. Time will tell, tell us what a few of us already know.:jointsmile:

[fishman3811]

I just hope one day Bush will be in front of a court and be prosacuted as a war criminal like he should be.....Then he should be hanged just like Saddam

[8182KSKUSH]

I know I am just being lazy, and this has probably been seen before, but for the benefit of those that haven't seen it here you go.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf
And no, this is not part of a neo con fox news conspiracy, before someone decides to dismiss this out of hand because it was reported by fox, doesn't change the facts, it just means that no one else reported it. Not surprising, since it flies in the face of what the liberal left would rather have people believe, or at least chant and put on bumper stickers. And please, try to restrain yourselves from blasting me for using fox as a source, the tactic of trying to attack and discredit someone on these forums rather than argue the relevant points of the discussion is extremely predictable and very weak. So let me save the flamers the trouble.

"Fox news!!! WTF!! This can't be trusted, blah blah blah, they are all biased blah blah, you are a jerk kush blah blah, you are soo small minded blah blah, you only listen to whatever fox news says blah blah.":)
Hopefully that will cover 97% of the responses that are sure to follow.

There now that is out of the way and hopefully if there is any more debate it will be relevant to the contents of the report and not the reporting of it. Just because it came from fox, doesn't change what it is saying.:thumbsup:
Like I said earlier, it's high time someone put in black and white point by point why what we did was and is the right thing. I will be doing just that soon, unless p4b beats me to it, or unless he already has. But I don't think there has been a thread dedicated to that, or maybe it would be fun to make a GWB tribute thread talking about all of the great things he has done not just the Iraq war. We'll see.

[8182KSKUSH]

I just hope one day Bush will be in front of a court and be prosacuted as a war criminal like he should be.....Then he should be hanged just like Saddam

I just hope that squirel gets his nut soon and is wearing a rubber. :D

[killerweed420]

I know I am just being lazy, and this has probably been seen before, but for the benefit of those that haven't seen it here you go.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf
And no, this is not part of a neo con fox news conspiracy, before someone decides to dismiss this out of hand because it was reported by fox, doesn't change the facts, it just means that no one else reported it. Not surprising, since it flies in the face of what the liberal left would rather have people believe, or at least chant and put on bumper stickers. And please, try to restrain yourselves from blasting me for using fox as a source, the tactic of trying to attack and discredit someone on these forums rather than argue the relevant points of the discussion is extremely predictable and very weak. So let me save the flamers the trouble.

"Fox news!!! WTF!! This can't be trusted, blah blah blah, they are all biased blah blah, you are a jerk kush blah blah, you are soo small minded blah blah, you only listen to whatever fox news says blah blah.":)
Hopefully that will cover 97% of the responses that are sure to follow.

There now that is out of the way and hopefully if there is any more debate it will be relevant to the contents of the report and not the reporting of it. Just because it came from fox, doesn't change what it is saying.:thumbsup:
Like I said earlier, it's high time someone put in black and white point by point why what we did was and is the right thing. I will be doing just that soon, unless p4b beats me to it, or unless he already has. But I don't think there has been a thread dedicated to that, or maybe it would be fun to make a GWB tribute thread talking about all of the great things he has done not just the Iraq war. We'll see.

So they got a little mustard gas? Who doesn't. We probably sold it to them. We used chemical weapons in Iraq. So its pretty hypocritical to say we can have them but you can't.
White phosphorous,napalm,uranium sabots.

[stinkyattic]

For too many years now, left wing morons with support and encouragement from the biased media, have made the following idiotic contribution to the debate about the war on terror
....no, Psycho, tell us how you REALLY feel! ;)

[Psycho4Bud]

Well I wouldn't go that far BUT after hearing of this amount of yellow cake combined with this article:
CNN.com - Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard - Jun. 26, 2003 (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/)

How could anyone state that Saddam didn't need to be removed? Well, I guess Obama and his supporters would. :wtf:

Have a good one!:s4:

[8182KSKUSH]

So they got a little mustard gas? Who doesn't. We probably sold it to them. We used chemical weapons in Iraq. So its pretty hypocritical to say we can have them but you can't.
White phosphorous,napalm,uranium sabots.


Big difference when you use weapons of that nature against hundreds of thousands of unarmed men, women, and children, as opposed to using them against armed, uniformed, soldiers that are actually fighting.
They are still finding mass graves and bodies, piles and piles of them.

[killerweed420]

Big difference when you use weapons of that nature against hundreds of thousands of unarmed men, women, and children, as opposed to using them against armed, uniformed, soldiers that are actually fighting.
They are still finding mass graves and bodies, piles and piles of them.
A lot of this was used against civilian populations. Kind of hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys in Iraq.

[8182KSKUSH]

A lot of this was used against civilian populations. Kind of hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys in Iraq.
Please define, "alot of this", and "civillian populations", I must have missed when this happened.:jointsmile:

OK, I am calling BULLSHIT.
I know that there are unintentional civilian casualties in every war, there hasn't ever been a war that hasn't happened in.
That's not what Saddam did, and he wasn't confused when he wiped out entire towns of citizens of his own nation. Trying to equivicate what WE have done in Iraq to Saddam, Hitler, is just a little beyond ridiculous. It is also a predictable, factually false, and boring counter. I would be happy to post and match incident by incident of examples of Saddam doing just what I have described, and you could post comparable examples of us doing the same right?:wtf: Don't worry, I won't hold my breath. But seriousely that is really reaching, and vague at best.
So lets review, is there a difference between civillian casualties in the act of war that are un-intentional as compared to a small armed group from your own government rolling into town, raping women and children, then executing all person and throwing them in a giant hole? Is gassing an entire village of unarmed, unknowing, citizens of your own country just because, not even during any declared war the same as collateral damage during a declared war the same? Is this what you are saying?:wtf::wtf:

If you could find a way to make "kinda of hard to tell the civillians from the enemy" rhyme or fit on a bumper sticker then you would be in business!:thumbsup:

[killerweed420]

What Sadamm did was absolutely horrible. But we did the same in the name of freeing the Iraqi people.We used white phosphorus bombs and napalm the first couple of years and as usual a lot of civilians died.
Just one quote but there are numerous available.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | US used white phosphorus in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm)
I think Americans get a little sanctimonious about everything we do is the right thing to do. I think a lot of times we are more wrong than we are right and history tends to prove it.

[McDanger]

What Sadamm did was absolutely horrible. But we did the same in the name of freeing the Iraqi people.We used white phosphorus bombs and napalm the first couple of years and as usual a lot of civilians died.
Just one quote but there are numerous available.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | US used white phosphorus in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm)
I think Americans get a little sanctimonious about everything we do is the right thing to do. I think a lot of times we are more wrong than we are right and history tends to prove it.

It does not say we used it for a couple years. It said during the battle of Falluja, and ONLY against insurgents (I guess these are civilians to the left).

[8182KSKUSH]

What Sadamm did was absolutely horrible. But we did the same in the name of freeing the Iraqi people.We used white phosphorus bombs and napalm the first couple of years and as usual a lot of civilians died.
Just one quote but there are numerous available.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | US used white phosphorus in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm)
I think Americans get a little sanctimonious about everything we do is the right thing to do. I think a lot of times we are more wrong than we are right and history tends to prove it.

Just so we are clear, the fact the you are claiming "as usual lots of civilians died" is not supported anywhere in the link that YOU provided. Also not supported is YOUR claim that we used these legal weapons the FIRST COUPLE YEARS. It actually says the contrary. I am going to post the entire article you are siting so that someone can show me where it says "as usual lots of civilians were killed".
Did you even read this article?:wtf:

US used white phosphorus in Iraq
US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said.

"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.
The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.
BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.
Col Venable denied that white phosphorous constituted a banned chemical weapon.

White phosphorus is an incendiary weapon, not a chemical weapon
Col Barry Venable
Pentagon spokesman

Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance against civilians.
The US state department had earlier said white phosphorus had been used in Falluja very sparingly, for illumination purposes.
Col Venable said that statement was based on "poor information".
'Incendiary'
The US-led assault on Falluja - a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency west of Baghdad - displaced most of the city's 300,000 population and left many of its buildings destroyed.
Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases.
"However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."

WHITE PHOSPHORUS
Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh
Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
Protocol III not signed by US



And he said it had been used in Falluja, but it was a "conventional munition", not a chemical weapon.
It is not "outlawed or illegal", Col Venable said.
He said US forces could use white phosphorus rounds to flush enemy troops out of covered positions.
"The combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives," he said.
San Diego journalist Darrin Mortenson, who was embedded with US marines during the assault on Falluja, told the BBC's Today radio programme he had seen white phosphorous used "as an incendiary weapon" against insurgents.
However, he "never saw anybody intentionally use any weapon against civilians", he said.
'Particularly nasty'
White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.
Globalsecurity.org, a defence website, says: "Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful... These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears... it could burn right down to the bone."
A spokesman at the UK Ministry of Defence said the use of white phosphorus was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area.
But Professor Paul Rogers, of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.
He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people." When an Italian TV documentary revealing the use of white phosphorus in Iraq was broadcast on 8 November it sparked fury among Italian anti-war protesters, who demonstrated outside the US embassy in Rome.

Story from BBC NEWS:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | US used white phosphorus in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm)

Published: 2005/11/16 11:25:36 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

So again, I fail to see how this supports yours, or anyone else's claim that we or that GWB is just as horrible as Saddam?
I do appreciate the lively debate, and the maturity that you have, it is far beyond the way most handle these discussions, so I applaud you for that. With all do respect though, you are dead wrong with what you are saying.:jointsmile: And nothing in this article supports what you are saying, it actually contradicts what you are saying.:D

[8182KSKUSH]

Big difference when you use weapons of that nature against hundreds of thousands of unarmed men, women, and children, as opposed to using them against armed, uniformed, soldiers that are actually fighting.
They are still finding mass graves and bodies, piles and piles of them.


So we are back where we started killerweed.:jointsmile: Big ass world of difference between us and them.:thumbsup:

[birdgirl73]

How could anyone state that Saddam didn't need to be removed? Well, I guess Obama and his supporters would. :wtf:

Have a good one!:s4:
Your understanding of the issues at hand here isn't any deeper than that which led you to post a story that didn't even have its facts straight.

If you'll look back at news stories and voting records, you'll find that the actual events of history go against your ridiculous statement above. Dems have known since before the first Bush administration that Saddam Hussein was awful. Bush the First did and the opposing party members of the legislature acknowledged that during his administration. Clinton knew well that he was dangerous. No one on either side of the aisle has ever disputed that. Our allies in Israel and Jordan have known this for ages, too. Again, that was never in dispute, just like the existence of this yellowcake wasn't.

What Dems did dispute is what Dragonrider explained earlier--a war based on the lies about the obtaining of enriched nuclear material from Niger. On lies to damage the ambassador whose report denied the existence of stockpiled weapons (this yellowcake was moot in that inventory and we've been aware of it for years). On the Addington-Cheney-driven scramble to create intelligence that fostered circumstances under which we could go to war.

Read your history. Read about Kurdistan. Read something from a legitimate news source. Please. You'll be better prepared. And you'll see that no Dem with any understanding of these issues has ever believed anything else other than that Saddam Hussein was a crazy, murdering SOB. Was that justification for a war? Well, it hasn't been justification for a war against the countries in the hands of the other crazy SOB dictators of the world that the Bush administration has been fine to leave in place. So, logically, no, it wasn't justification, at least in the eyes of the Dems. Since there were vast amounts of oil at stake here, though, it had to be justified by the Repubs.

[8182KSKUSH]

I don't get it.
From what I know, there were multiple, multiple, reasons for invading, not just 1 single piece of intel. If this debate is framed in such a manner as to limit the reasons for going to war to just that 1 item then I guess you have a point. That was not the sole reason though. I could be wrong.
One point worth mentioning that is never brought up, invading, toppling the Saddam government has given a huge geo-political advantage in the mid east, which we can use as leverage against Iran. N. Korea has shown in recent days progress through diplomatic channels, (though how much who really knows).
How long was it after the fall of Saddam that the little tyrant in Libya(sp), I want to say Kadafi, basically threw up his hands and confessed to having WMDs himself simply out of fear. (I am sorry for some reason my memory is failing me at the moment so if anyone knows what I am referencing just jump in.)
But the point is, that would not have happened had we not invaded and conquered. Unless you believe it was just a coincedence.:wtf:
Oil is a big deal you are right, for the world not just us. Yet as we speak I just filled up for 4.67 per gallon, so again I fail to see the benefits of all that oil we are getting.;)
Strategery!
We cannot be everywhere all at once, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything. If that's the argument (that we aren't taking on other evil doers so why did we go to Iraq?) That's kind of weak. So it would be ok to take out Saddam as long as we also toppled every other single government that was being ran by a tyrant. Somehow I don't think the left would support that, as well as the fact that it is not realistic. You have to choose your battles. How comfortable do you think the mullahs in Iran are right now, knowing that they now have a fledgling democracy forming next door. And that the influence of that alone may topple Iran as it is today.
Strategery.
We had a tyrant, whom had already demonstrated that he was willing to kill hundreds of thousands of his own innocent people with WMD's, and had expressed a desire to do the same to us. Not such a big deal until we are hit at home on 9/11 by terrorists. From that point on we have a situation where we have a world leader with the means to supply these terrorists with all sorts of nice things. We have a man that is paying 10s of thousands of dollars to people to blow themselves up in public places for the sole purpose of killing Jews, and bragging about it. Does anyone still think it was a needless military action, and that he couldn't do anything to us? Personally himself likely not, but I bet my last bowl that he would go way out of his way to help anyone else that wanted to kill infadels in America. Like I said, he was already doing it to Israel.
If we weren't justified in taking action, then what would it take exactly to justify taking action?
In closing, I challenge anyone that believes the world would be better off if we would have never gone in their to explain exactly how we would be better off. Not to mention the people that actually live in Iraq, how would they be better off today with Saddam in power still? I am sure they would strongly disagree.:jointsmile:

[killerweed420]

Just so we are clear, the fact the you are claiming "as usual lots of civilians died" is not supported anywhere in the link that YOU provided. Also not supported is YOUR claim that we used these legal weapons the FIRST COUPLE YEARS. It actually says the contrary. I am going to post the entire article you are siting so that someone can show me where it says "as usual lots of civilians were killed".
Did you even read this article?:wtf:

US used white phosphorus in Iraq
US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said.

"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.
The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.
BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.
Col Venable denied that white phosphorous constituted a banned chemical weapon.

White phosphorus is an incendiary weapon, not a chemical weapon
Col Barry Venable
Pentagon spokesman

Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance against civilians.
The US state department had earlier said white phosphorus had been used in Falluja very sparingly, for illumination purposes.
Col Venable said that statement was based on "poor information".
'Incendiary'
The US-led assault on Falluja - a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency west of Baghdad - displaced most of the city's 300,000 population and left many of its buildings destroyed.
Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases.
"However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."

WHITE PHOSPHORUS
Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh
Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
Protocol III not signed by US



And he said it had been used in Falluja, but it was a "conventional munition", not a chemical weapon.
It is not "outlawed or illegal", Col Venable said.
He said US forces could use white phosphorus rounds to flush enemy troops out of covered positions.
"The combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives," he said.
San Diego journalist Darrin Mortenson, who was embedded with US marines during the assault on Falluja, told the BBC's Today radio programme he had seen white phosphorous used "as an incendiary weapon" against insurgents.
However, he "never saw anybody intentionally use any weapon against civilians", he said.
'Particularly nasty'
White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.
Globalsecurity.org, a defence website, says: "Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful... These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears... it could burn right down to the bone."
A spokesman at the UK Ministry of Defence said the use of white phosphorus was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area.
But Professor Paul Rogers, of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.
He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people." When an Italian TV documentary revealing the use of white phosphorus in Iraq was broadcast on 8 November it sparked fury among Italian anti-war protesters, who demonstrated outside the US embassy in Rome.

Story from BBC NEWS:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | US used white phosphorus in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm)

Published: 2005/11/16 11:25:36 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

So again, I fail to see how this supports yours, or anyone else's claim that we or that GWB is just as horrible as Saddam?
I do appreciate the lively debate, and the maturity that you have, it is far beyond the way most handle these discussions, so I applaud you for that. With all do respect though, you are dead wrong with what you are saying.:jointsmile: And nothing in this article supports what you are saying, it actually contradicts what you are saying.:D
The catch here is this is how many times the Pentagon says these chemicals were used. How often does the Pentagon tell the truth? The 100's of thousands of Iraqi civilians that have died are reported in numerous web sites. Of course no way to know how many really died because all the infrastucture was destroyed. Estimates are anywhere from 40,000 civilians to over a million.
Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/)
Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War)

[dragonrider]

Thanks for the reasonable and well-thought-out post, Birdgirl. It's always irritating and insulting when somneone implies that Deomcrats someohow favored Saddam Hussein or think the world would be better with him in it. Everyone knew he was a despicable tyrant who deserved death or worse, Democrats included.

Everyone knew that he was dangerous and yet not everyone agreed that it would be a good idea to go in and take him out by force given how hard the aftermath would be to manage. Bush senior, Powell, and Cheney all felt that way in '91 when we could have easily taken him out. A lot of people thought we should tke him out in '91, but Bush senior, Powell, and Cheney knew the aftermath would be a disaster and said so in '91. And look at where we are now that we went against that wisdom --- a disaster.

We had Hussein adequately bottled up and contained with sanctions and the no-fly zones. The fact that we could have easily defeated him at any moment meant we didn't actually have to go in and do it. He was smart enough to know we could take him out any time we wanted to, and he was not looking for a fight. In my judgement and the judgement of many others he was a contained threat.

It's insulting to say that because a person feels Hussein was adequately contained that somehow that person is in FAVOR of Hussein. It's stupid and unsupported.

[8182KSKUSH]

The catch here is this is how many times the Pentagon says these chemicals were used. How often does the Pentagon tell the truth? The 100's of thousands of Iraqi civilians that have died are reported in numerous web sites. Of course no way to know how many really died because all the infrastucture was destroyed. Estimates are anywhere from 40,000 civilians to over a million.
Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/)
Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War)


LMFAO
Shit man you are right! I am sure that "Iraq Body Count" the website which is hard left, I just gonna guess, George Soros funded, anti-American site is going to have better information than the pentagon, and our own military.:wtf: But just in case they don't, then there's always Wiki.:wtf:
ok
Well since it is on the INTERNET it must all be true huh, at least since it reinforces your personally opinion that the war was unjust. Your opinion that the war was unjust is fair and perfectly fine really. I respect that. However I wouldn't go as far as to say you are really getting good solid info from either of those sources. Just do your due diligence and try to be as skeptical about the nature of the information that you get from those sources, as you are with the information our own military is giving you. Just because it reinforces what you believe doesn't make it true. My brother does this, he will dig and dig and dig and spend tons of time for any way to discredit anything that contradicts his limp wristed bed wetting liberal beliefs, but if moveon.org says it he just accepts it as the gospel because it reinforces what he has already been told to believe. I am not saying you are doing that in this case, but neither of those sources are worth a shit for any kind of relevant information. Just my opinion though.:jointsmile:

Who knows maybe you are right and we are just killing people over there just for the fun of it, and it's all a big conspiracy to keep it covered up, and the people over at the Iraq Body Count site are just on the cutting edge of journalism. I kind of doubt it though.:wtf:

[dragonrider]

I don't get it.
From what I know, there were multiple, multiple, reasons for invading, not just 1 single piece of intel. If this debate is framed in such a manner as to limit the reasons for going to war to just that 1 item then I guess you have a point. That was not the sole reason though. I could be wrong.

Well, I won't speak for Birdgirl, but personally I was trying to stick with the topic of the original post. The original post was about yellowcake and made some weak conclusion that, because of this well-known cache of yellowcake in Iraq, Bush had not lied about yellowcake in the runup to the war.

The only statement I can remember Bush making in regards to yellowcake before the war was his claim that Iraq had tried to illegally obtain yellowcake from Niger, and I am assuming that it is this statement that the article had been trying to prove was not a lie. The article did not prove this statement was not lie. Bush lied about Iraq trying to obtain yellowcake from Niger. The Niger lead had been followed up by multiple intelligence services and found not to have any truth, and Bush was aware of that fact. Yet he still presented this lie as one of the most important pieces of evidence that Iraq was violating the UN resolutions and attempting to restart his nuke program.

So, yes, this thread is about one of the many lies, mixed with many valid facts, that were used to justify the war.

[8182KSKUSH]

Everyone knew he was a despicable tyrant who deserved death or worse, Democrats included. .

I know that you are speaking for yourself and birdgirl, but not only have libs on this forum stated that we would be better off today if Saddam were still in power, but major national liberal leaders have said the same as well. Careful, they are going to throw you out of the club if the hear you talking like that!:)


Everyone knew that he was dangerous and yet not everyone agreed that it would be a good idea to go in and take him out by force given how hard the aftermath would be to manage. Bush senior, Powell, and Cheney all felt that way in '91 when we could have easily taken him out. A lot of people thought we should take him out in '91, but Bush senior, Powell, and Cheney knew the aftermath would be a disaster and said so in '91. And look at where we are now that we went against that wisdom --- a disaster. .

What you are saying here isn't entirely factual dragon. Us not going in in 91 was not a decision that was made by us, that was done by the U.N., remember? I believe had they had it their way (Bush 1), they would have kept going, and if I remember correctly there was quite a debate over that.


We had Hussein adequately bottled up and contained with sanctions and the no-fly zones. The fact that we could have easily defeated him at any moment meant we didn't actually have to go in and do it. He was smart enough to know we could take him out any time we wanted to, and he was not looking for a fight. In my judgement and the judgement of many others he was a contained threat.

It's insulting to say that because a person feels Hussein was adequately contained that somehow that person is in FAVOR of Hussein. It's stupid and unsupported.

Really, tell that to the Jews that were murdered in public by homicide bombers that were being subsidized by Sadam. What else was he doing? That's not even mentioning what he was doing to his own people. Yeah he was sure contained, not harming anyone huh?:wtf:

And it's not stupid, it's a fact. If you don't believe that we should have toppled him, then you must believe that he should have been in power. Explain where I am going wrong with that, how exaclty would he have been taken out of power without this war? I am all ears.
Sorry to insult anyone, that's not my intent, it is just a little bit confusing when anyone says that we should have never gone in, but they also think that Saddam should have been removed from power? Which is it? You can't really have it both ways, er, well I guess you can, it just doesn't make any sense. You either support him being removed from power or you don't. Unless you believe that we could have just talked him out of power? :wtf: That always works with sadistic homicidal dictators!

[8182KSKUSH]

Well, I won't speak for Birdgirl, but personally I was trying to stick with the topic of the original post. The original post was about yellowcake and made some weak conclusion that, because of this well-known cache of yellowcake in Iraq, Bush had not lied about yellowcake in the runup to the war.

The only statement I can remember Bush making in regards to yellowcake before the war was his claim that Iraq had tried to illegally obtain yellowcake from Niger, and I am assuming that it is this statement that the article had been trying to prove was not a lie. The article did not prove this statement was not lie. Bush lied about Iraq trying to obtain yellowcake from Niger. The Niger lead had been followed up by multiple intelligence services and found not to have any truth, and Bush was aware of that fact. Yet he still presented this lie as one of the most important pieces of evidence that Iraq was violating the UN resolutions and attempting to restart his nuke program.

So, yes, this thread is about one of the many lies, mixed with many valid facts, that were used to justify the war.


O
Sorry
Guess I am off topic.

[dragonrider]

O
Sorry
Guess I am off topic.

Ha ha! Well, these discussions about that war always go that way, and there's probably nothing wrong with that, but all I was saying was you can't fault Birdgirl for sticking to the subject.

[8182KSKUSH]

Ha ha! Well, these discussions about that war always go that way, and there's probably nothing wrong with that, but all I was saying was you can't fault Birdgirl for sticking to the subject.


No you are right, I am always thinking macro, even when the disscusion is a micro point. This is what happens when I don't have any kush.:( My brain fails to work as well, I really believe that.

[thcbongman]

I don't understand these assertions that the Pentagon isn't telling the truth.

Just looking at Iraqi body count website, it seems like the data collection methods are vastly inconsistant. I looked at one incident.

k10305 :: Apr 25: Man and his wife shot dead in Palestine, east Mosul :: Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/incidents/k10305)

All it states is man & wife shot dead in drive-by shooting.

No identities, no specifics of crime-scene. How is there any way to distinguish this even had any relation to the US military or terrorism vs a crime amongst Iraqis? I'm sure collected by the Pentagon undergoes far more vigirous process to be deemed acceptable statistical information.

I wouldn't trust iraqbodycount at all. Look at the actual data.

[dragonrider]

Well, even if they are a bit off topic, I'll still answer some of your points!


I know that you are speaking for yourself and birdgirl, but not only have libs on this forum stated that we would be better off today if Saddam were still in power, but major national liberal leaders have said the same as well. Careful, they are going to throw you out of the club if the hear you talking like that!:)

I have never heard anyone say that we would be better off with Saddam still in power. I have heard plenty of people say that we would be better off if we hadn't fought the war, but that is not that same thing. Being opposed to the war is not the same as being in favor of Saddam.

If you had cockroaches in your house, everyone in the house would probably agree that the cockroaches were bad and everyone would be better off without the cockroaches. But if you burned down your house to get rid of the cockroaches, some people might question your judgement. If you said, "I guess you think we'd be better off with the roaches!" that would be foolish. The response would be, "No, I'm not in favor of the roaches! I just think there might have been a way to deal with it without burning down the house."

The same principle applies here. Saying the war was a bad idea is not the same as wishing Saddam were still in power. You have to look at both pieces together, not just one or the other. I say that getting rid of Saddam is great, but it was not worth the price we have paid for this war. Likewise it would not be fair to say to a supporter of the war, "Oh, I guess you are GLAD 4,000 US tropps are dead, 100,000 Iraqis are dead, millions of Iraqis are displaced, the country is in ruins, and billions of dollars have been spent!" Of course no one is glad about that. The only way to look at this thing is to look at the WHOLE thing, what was gained and what it cost, and then decide if it was worth it.


What you are saying here isn't entirely factual dragon. Us not going in in 91 was not a decision that was made by us, that was done by the U.N., remember? I believe had they had it their way (Bush 1), they would have kept going, and if I remember correctly there was quite a debate over that.

As I remember it, there were several factors for not going all the way in '91. I do not remember it being the UN's decision. The US invasion was part of a broad coalition, and not all members would have supported a full overthrow, so that was a factor. But I specifically remember Dick Cheney explaining in an interview in '91 that we did not want to actually topple Saddam because the country would split into three parts, there would be a civil war, and we did not want to be responsible for the ensuing chaos. I don't remember if there was "quite a debate over that" in terms of public policy (there probably was), but I do remember quite a debate over that between me and my college roommates, and that is why the Cheney interview sticks out so vividly in my mind. I agreed with Cheney in '91 and I remember making that case to several other more conservative friends of mine who thought we should have just rolled up the regime at that time.

Clearly a lot changed between '91 and 2003 when Cheney was behind the war 100%. They decided it was worth the cost after 9/11. But I would count it as another lie that he and Bush were not upfront about the likelihood of a disasterous aftermath to the invasion. He knew about it in '91 and articulated the danger very well back then. I don't think he just forget about it. And it turns out he was exactly right back then. They knew what was going to happen, and they did it anyway without being honest with the rest of us.

[Barrelhse]

Your understanding of the issues at hand here isn't any deeper than that which led you to post a story that didn't even have its facts straight.

If you'll look back at news stories and voting records, you'll find that the actual events of history go against your ridiculous statement above. Dems have known since before the first Bush administration that Saddam Hussein was awful. Bush the First did and the opposing party members of the legislature acknowledged that during his administration. Clinton knew well that he was dangerous. No one on either side of the aisle has ever disputed that. Our allies in Israel and Jordan have known this for ages, too. Again, that was never in dispute, just like the existence of this yellowcake wasn't.

What Dems did dispute is what Dragonrider explained earlier--a war based on the lies about the obtaining of enriched nuclear material from Niger. On lies to damage the ambassador whose report denied the existence of stockpiled weapons (this yellowcake was moot in that inventory and we've been aware of it for years). On the Addington-Cheney-driven scramble to create intelligence that fostered circumstances under which we could go to war.

Read your history. Read about Kurdistan. Read something from a legitimate news source. Please. You'll be better prepared. And you'll see that no Dem with any understanding of these issues has ever believed anything else other than that Saddam Hussein was a crazy, murdering SOB. Was that justification for a war? Well, it hasn't been justification for a war against the countries in the hands of the other crazy SOB dictators of the world that the Bush administration has been fine to leave in place. So, logically, no, it wasn't justification, at least in the eyes of the Dems. Since there were vast amounts of oil at stake here, though, it had to be justified by the Repubs.

Thank you, Birdgirl. I had trouble saying that without containing my urge to be abusive.

[Psycho4Bud]

Your understanding of the issues at hand here isn't any deeper than that which led you to post a story that didn't even have its facts straight.

If you'll look back at news stories and voting records, you'll find that the actual events of history go against your ridiculous statement above.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

LOL......All these dem quotes from a time when Lil' Bush wasn't even in office. But hey, keep up the faith.:thumbsup:

Such hostility for a dem, I thought ya all were about keeping the peace. LMAO!!.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Psycho4Bud]

So, logically, no, it wasn't justification, at least in the eyes of the Dems.

Just can't resist.....:D

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Damn...looks like the left wasn't so "logical" after all.:D


Since there were vast amounts of oil at stake here, though, it had to be justified by the Repubs.

So far the closest thing to a contract was awarded to a Canadian firm for exploration in the Kurdistan provinces.

As of now, ALL profits from Iraqi oil is going to the Iraqi government...NOT a foriegn oil firm. Now if you have something, anything, that would state that lil' Bush, lil' Cheney, and the evil repubs are pumping oil from that country I'd love to see the article. LOL....sounds like a 9-11 "Bush did it" line to me.:rolleyes:

Have a good one!:s4:

[Fugitive]

The 550 metric tons of yellow cake was routinely tagged, documented and checked by UN inspectors since 1991. All of the yellowcake was kept at a research center.
Why wasn't Saddam tampering with it? He was bringing illegal yellow cake from Niger which turned out to be a hoax.

INVO - Factsheet (http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/SV/Invo/factsheet.html)

[dragonrider]

So far the closest thing to a contract was awarded to a Canadian firm for exploration in the Kurdistan provinces.

As of now, ALL profits from Iraqi oil is going to the Iraqi government...NOT a foriegn oil firm. Now if you have something, anything, that would state that lil' Bush, lil' Cheney, and the evil repubs are pumping oil from that country I'd love to see the article. LOL....sounds like a 9-11 "Bush did it" line to me.:rolleyes:


Well, I don't think anyone has ever claimed they were SUCCESSFUL in acquiring greater access to Iraqi oil. Usually the Bush adminsistration is associated with incompetence, not success.

But now it looks like things have finally turned around, and we've got our big fat oil contracts after all! Woooo-hoooo! It was worth it!:

British and US companies win Iraq oil contracts

Matthew Weaver guardian.co.uk, Monday June 30, 2008

The Iraqi government is to award a series of key oil contracts to British and US companies later today, fuelling criticism that the Iraq war was largely about oil.

The successful companies are expected to include Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Total.

Non-Western companies, notably those in Russia, are expected to lose out.

The technical support contracts will give the companies access to Iraq's vast untapped oil fields. Oil production in Iraq is at its highest level since the invasion in 2003. The Iraqi government wants to increase production by 20%, as the country has an estimated 115bn barrels of crude reserves.

The US state department was involved in drawing up the contracts, the New York Times reported today.

It provided template contracts and suggestions on drafting but were not involved in the decisions, US officials said.

Democratic senators last week lobbied that the awarding of the contracts should be delayed until after the Iraqi parliament passes laws on the distribution of oil revenues.

Frederick Barton, senior adviser at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, told the paper: "We pretend it [oil] is not a centerpiece of our motivation, yet we keep confirming that it is."
Last year Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve said: "Everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

British and US companies win Iraq oil contracts | World news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/30/iraq.oil)

[dragonrider]

Here's a pretty good analysis and opinion piece by Bill Moyers about the no-bid contracts awarded to US oil companies in Iraq:

It Was Oil, All Along

by Bill Moyers and Michael Winship

June 27, 2008â??Oh, no, they told us, Iraq isn't a war about oil. That's cynical and simplistic, they said. It's about terror and al Qaeda and toppling a dictator and spreading democracy and protecting ourselves from weapons of mass destruction.

But one by one, these concocted rationales went up in smoke, fire and ashes. And now the bottom turns out to be....the bottom line. It is about oil.

Alan Greenspan said so last fall. The former chairman of the Federal Reserve, safely out of office, confessed in his memoir, â??...Everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.â?�

He elaborated in an interview with the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands, our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first Gulf War."

Remember, also, that soon after the invasion, Donald Rumsfeldâ??s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, told the press that war was our only strategic choice.

â??We had virtually no economic options with Iraq,â?� he explained, â??because the country floats on a sea of oil.â?�

Shades of Daniel Plainview, the monstrous petroleum tycoon in the movie â??There Will Be Blood.â?� Half-mad, he exclaims, "There's a whole ocean of oil under our feet!" then adds, "No one can get at it except for me!"

No wonder American troops only guarded the Ministries of Oil and the Interior in Baghdad, even as looters pillaged museums of their priceless antiquities. They were making sure no one could get at the oil except... guess who?

Hereâ??s a recent headline in The New York Times: "Deals with Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back."

Read on: "Four western companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power."

There you have it. After a long exile, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP are back in Iraq. And on the wings of no-bid contracts â?? that's right, sweetheart deals like those given Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater. The kind of deals you get only if you have friends in high places.

And these war profiteers have friends in very high places.

Letâ??s go back a few years to the 1990s, when private citizen Dick Cheney was running Halliburton, the big energy service company.

Thatâ??s when he told the oil industry that, â??By 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.â?�

Fast forward to Cheneyâ??s first heady days in the White House. The oil industry and other energy conglomerates have been handed backdoor keys to the White House, and their CEOs and lobbyists were trooping in and out for meetings with their old pal, now Vice President Cheney.

The meetings are secret, conducted under tight security, but as we reported five years ago, among the documents that turned up from some of those meetings were maps of oil fields in Iraq â?? and a list of companies who wanted access to them.

The conservative group Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club filed suit to try to find out who attended the meetings and what was discussed, but the White House fought all the way to the Supreme Court to keep the press and public from learning the whole truth.

Think about it. These secret meetings took place six months before 9/11, two years before Bush and Cheney invaded Iraq. We still donâ??t know what they were about.

What we know is that this is the oil industry thatâ??s enjoying swollen profits these days.

It would be laughable if it werenâ??t so painful to remember that their erstwhile cheerleader for invading Iraq â?? the press mogul Rupert Murdoch â?? once said that a successful war there would bring us $20 a barrel of oil.

The last time we looked, it was more than $140 a barrel. Where are you, Rupert, when the facts need checking and the predictions are revisited?

At a congressional hearing this week, James Hansen, the NASA climate scientist who exactly twenty years ago alerted Congress and the world to the dangers of global warming, compared the chief executives of Big Oil to the tobacco moguls who denied that nicotine is addictive or that there's a link between smoking and cancer.

Hansen, who the administration has tried again and again to silence, said these barons of black gold should be tried for committing crimes against humanity and nature in opposing efforts to deal with global warming.

Perhaps those sweetheart deals in Iraq should be added to his proposed indictments. They have been purchased at a very high price.

Four thousand American soldiers dead, tens of thousands permanently wounded for life, hundreds of thousands of dead and crippled Iraqis plus five million displaced, and a cost that will mount into trillions of dollars.

The political analyst Kevin Phillips says America has become little more than an "energy protection force," doing anything to gain access to expensive fuel without regard to the lives of others or the earth itself.

One thinks again of Daniel Plainview in â??There Will Be Blood.â?� His lust for oil came at the price of his son and his soul.


It Was Oil, All Along | BaltimoreChronicle.com (http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2008/062708Moyers-Winship.shtml)

[McDanger]

1st off, the gov't said they were told by British intelegence about the Niger yellowcake deal, and Britain still stands behind it to this day. Wilson was and is a HACK despite being sent on a bullshit mission by his wife (the NOT COVERT Valerie Plame), which he went over there and talked to about 2 people and did exactly NO investigating to come up with his lame opinion. He did not PROVE anything one way or the other, he just gave a very uninformed opinion. And it was Richard Armitage (no friend of GWB) who leaked her name (why was he never charged if it was such a big deal).

[allrollsin21]

""So far the closest thing to a contract was awarded to a Canadian firm for exploration in the Kurdistan provinces.

As of now, ALL profits from Iraqi oil is going to the Iraqi government...NOT a foriegn oil firm. Now if you have something, anything, that would state that lil' Bush, lil' Cheney, and the evil repubs are pumping oil from that country I'd love to see the article. LOL....sounds like a 9-11 "Bush did it" line to me.""


I am struggling to not get involved in this...but it would appear from the above few posts that psycho4B owes an apology to Drider...and an admission that he is so dug in within the republican trenches that he just won't admit the slightest bit of wrongdoing by his noble leaders. Its Ok, just admit it:thumbsup:

Or you could change the subject or just address this post instead of the topic above that just proved your last post to be entirely wrong

[allrollsin21]

Mc danger it looks like you are from Wisconsin...were you in Niger when the above mentioned investigation took place? Do you have any facts to back up your assertions that "two people were spoken to"?
That is silly. Why do YOU think her cover was blown?

[Fencewalker]

And please, try to restrain yourselves from blasting me for using fox as a source, the tactic of trying to attack and discredit someone on these forums rather than argue the relevant points of the discussion is extremely predictable and very weak.

LMFAO
Shit man you are right! I am sure that "Iraq Body Count" the website which is hard left, I just gonna guess, George Soros funded, anti-American site is going to have better information than the pentagon, and our own military.:wtf: But just in case they don't, then there's always Wiki.:wtf:
Irony...;)

[dragonrider]

1st off, the gov't said they were told by British intelegence about the Niger yellowcake deal, and Britain still stands behind it to this day. Wilson was and is a HACK despite being sent on a bullshit mission by his wife (the NOT COVERT Valerie Plame), which he went over there and talked to about 2 people and did exactly NO investigating to come up with his lame opinion. He did not PROVE anything one way or the other, he just gave a very uninformed opinion. And it was Richard Armitage (no friend of GWB) who leaked her name (why was he never charged if it was such a big deal).

If you know a fact is false, then even if you attribute it to someone else, if you pass the falsehood on as truth, it is still a lie. Just because Bush attributed the faulty intelligence to the British does not mean it was not a lie --- he knew that OUR intelligence thought the claim was false. So it's really irrellevant whether British intelligence sources stand by their initial claim or not. In addition, I would be surprised if they do still stand by it, because the documents on which the claims were based are KNOWN to be forgeries.

The CIA investigated the claims and concluded they were false. Prior to Bush publicly making the claim about the Nigerian yellowcake, CIA Director George Tenet twice sent memos asking that Bush not make that claim because the CIA did not support that claim. The State Department checked out the claim and concluded it was false. But Bush still publicly made the Nigerian yellowcake claim, despite the CIA and State department not supporting it. That amounts to a lie. After the claim was made publicly, but prior to the war, the IAEA examined the documents and concluded immediately that they were obvious forgeries.

[McDanger]

This is from a blog but it refernces veifiable facts.
To summarize, then: In February 1999 one of Saddam Hussein's chief nuclear goons paid a visit to Niger, but his identity was not noticed by Joseph Wilson, nor emphasized in his "report" to the CIA, nor mentioned at all in his later memoir. British intelligence picked up the news of the Zahawie visit from French and Italian sources and passed it on to Washington. Zahawie's denials of any background or knowledge, in respect of nuclear matters, are plainly laughable based on his past record, and he is still taken seriously enough as an expert on such matters to be invited (as part of a Jordanian delegation) to Hans Blix's commission on WMD. Two very senior and experienced diplomats in the field of WMDs and disarmament, both of them from countries by no means aligned with the Bush administration, have been kind enough to share with me their disquiet at his activities. What responsible American administration could possibly have viewed any of this with indifference?

The subsequent mysteriously forged documents claiming evidence of an actual deal made between Zahawie and Niger were circulated well after the first British report (and may have been intended to discredit it) and have been deemed irrelevant by two independent inquiries in London. The original British report carefully said that Saddam had "sought" uranium, not that he had acquired it. The possible significance of a later return visitâ??this time by a minister from Niger to Baghdad in 2001â??has not as yet been clarified by the work of the Iraq Survey Group.

This means that both pillars of the biggest scandal-mongering effort yet mounted by the "anti-war" movementâ??the twin allegations of a false story exposed by Wilson and then of a state-run vendetta undertaken against him and the lady wife who dispatched him on the missionâ??are in irretrievable ruins. The truth is the exact polar opposite. The original Niger connection was both authentic and important, and Wilson's utter failure to grasp it or even examine it was not enough to make Karl Rove even turn over in bed. All the work of the supposed "outing" was inadvertently performed by Wilson's admirer Robert Novak. Of course, one defends the Bush administration at one's own peril. Thanks largely to Stephen Hadley, assistant to the president for national security affairs, our incompetent and divided government grew so nervous as to disown the words that appeared in the 2003 State of the Union address. But the facts are still the facts, and it is high time that they received one-millionth of the attention that the "Plamegate" farce has garnered.

[dragonrider]

McDanger, I think maybe I'll take a pass on your post from blog that "refernces veifiable facts." Seeing as those facts are not commonly known or accepted, you might have to actually provide a source that does verify them if you want anyone to take them seriously.

The facts that ARE commonly known and accepted are that the CIA and State Department advised the president that they could not support the Niger claim and that he should not state that claim publicly.

Considering how much trouble this has caused the administration, it seems like if there were actually some kind of evidence to support that claim, they would have provided it. Your blog post claims that the Bush adminstration was too incompetent and divided to provide the proof that this blogger claims to have. That seems ridiculous. The Bush adminstration is certainly incompetent and divided, but the idea that they couldn't get themselves together enough to present the same proof that this blogger claims to have seems unlikely.

[dragonrider]

Dems have known since before the first Bush administration that Saddam Hussein was awful. Bush the First did and the opposing party members of the legislature acknowledged that during his administration. Clinton knew well that he was dangerous. No one on either side of the aisle has ever disputed that. Our allies in Israel and Jordan have known this for ages, too. Again, that was never in dispute, just like the existence of this yellowcake wasn't.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

LOL......All these dem quotes from a time when Lil' Bush wasn't even in office. But hey, keep up the faith.:thumbsup:

Such hostility for a dem, I thought ya all were about keeping the peace. LMAO!!.

Have a good one!:s4:

P4B, didn't you just prove Birdgirl's point here? Didn't she say Democrats knew Hussein was dangerous?

[Psycho4Bud]

P4B, didn't you just prove Birdgirl's point here? Didn't she say Democrats knew Hussein was dangerous?

Originally Posted by birdgirl73
So, logically, no, it wasn't justification, at least in the eyes of the Dems.

We invaded because of WMD's....as you can see there were MANY dems that thought the same based on intelligence reports before and during Bush. Now if the left wants to spin this into the repubs going after oil...LOL, I guess they can live the fairy tail.

Have a good one!:s4:

[thcbongman]

Originally Posted by birdgirl73
So, logically, no, it wasn't justification, at least in the eyes of the Dems.

We invaded because of WMD's....as you can see there were MANY dems that thought the same based on intelligence reports before and during Bush. Now if the left wants to spin this into the repubs going after oil...LOL, I guess they can live the fairy tail.

Have a good one!:s4:

There was one republican senator and 5 republican house representatives that voted against the war. Does that mean they live in a fairy tale as well?

A spade is a spade. Everyone one of them was wrong to gauge Iraq was an imminent threat.

[dragonrider]

Originally Posted by birdgirl73
So, logically, no, it wasn't justification, at least in the eyes of the Dems.

We invaded because of WMD's....as you can see there were MANY dems that thought the same based on intelligence reports before and during Bush. Now if the left wants to spin this into the repubs going after oil...LOL, I guess they can live the fairy tail.

Have a good one!:s4:

Just because a person believed there were WMDs does not mean they were for this war. I believed there were WMDs based on what I had heard from the President, and I did not think the war was a good idea for all the reasons Bush senior, Powell and Cheney had told us in 1991. And when I found out there actually were no WMDs, I was doubly pissed off about it. And when I found out it wasn't all just a bad mistake but was actually a bunch of lies, then I was pissed livid.

How many of those who believed in the WMDs actually had access to exactly the same intelligence that Bush had, versus how many were basing their opinions on Bush's lies? Take the example of this thread, how many in congress knew that the Niger yellowcake story was false? The CIA and the State Department told Bush it was false, but did they inform congress too? I don't know, but I doubt it. You can't really hold someone accountable for decisions made based on the lies of others.

[Psycho4Bud]

How many of those who believed in the WMDs actually had access to exactly the same intelligence that Bush had, versus how many were basing their opinions on Bush's lies?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

IF your trying to imply that there was no intelligence during the Clinton years I'd have to agree with ya. If not, you can't spin the fact that these people not only agreed with Bush before he was in office but these same people were all on board when we invaded based on what they were told for YEARS.

Have a good one!:s4:

[dragonrider]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

IF your trying to imply that there was no intelligence during the Clinton years I'd have to agree with ya. If not, you can't spin the fact that these people not only agreed with Bush before he was in office but these same people were all on board when we invaded based on what they were told for YEARS.

Have a good one!:s4:

I think we are getting way off track from the original point of this thread that the yellowcake we knew about since 1991 somehow meant Bush had not lied about the Nigerian yellowcake. That's wrong --- he lied about the Nigerian yellowcake.

This long list of quotes does not indicate any of these people were for the war --- it indicates they thought Saddam Hussein was dangerous. I agreed with every one of these statements but did not agree with the war. You've listed the President, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor and prominent members of both houses. Don't you think that if they had thought Hussein was enough of a threat to justify a war, they could have had one? Obviously they didn't think they needed a war to deal with the problem at that point.

Earlier you also listed a long list of prominent Democrats who seemed to make statements in favor of the war after Bush took office and during the runup to the war. Those are the people I am asking about. Did they have access to Bush's intelligence sources? Or were they basing their pro-war opinion on Bush's lies? I know that for a lot of regular citizens, they based their pro-war opinions on Bush's lies and felt seriously burned about it later.

[Fugitive]

BILL TITLE: To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

Republican Yeas 215 Nays 6
Democratic Yeas 81 Nays 126

Itâ??s going to continue to happen as long as you have politicians in the pockets of the elite, they are not acting in the interest of your country. 9 Trillion dollars in debt, was it worth it? Obamessiah isnâ??t the answer.

Bush happens..

7qjCy4ryPJk

[Psycho4Bud]

I think we are getting way off track from the original point of this thread that the yellowcake we knew about since 1991 somehow meant Bush had not lied about the Nigerian yellowcake. That's wrong --- he lied about the Nigerian yellowcake.

IF he knowingly lied to congress don't ya think he would have been up on charges? Didn't work for Clinton about a b.j., why would Bush dodge the bullet? MAYBE the information he recieved was false?

Bush said then, â??The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .â?� Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

-A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bushâ??s 16 words â??well founded.â?�
-A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from â??a number of intelligence reports,â?� a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
-Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bushâ??s 16 words a â??lieâ?�, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
-Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.



This long list of quotes does not indicate any of these people were for the war --- it indicates they thought Saddam Hussein was dangerous. I agreed with every one of these statements but did not agree with the war. You've listed the President, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor and prominent members of both houses. Don't you think that if they had thought Hussein was enough of a threat to justify a war, they could have had one? Obviously they didn't think they needed a war to deal with the problem at that point.

Clinton was about as anxious to get involved in Iraq as he was the genocide in Rwanda. He was knee deep in impeachment hearings and they thought that dealing with reality might be perceived as a distraction on his lil' fling. As for Congress and Senate.....Bill's lil' affair was much more "news worthy" at the time for face time on the tube and finally being able to bring down a President was on all their minds.



Earlier you also listed a long list of prominent Democrats who seemed to make statements in favor of the war after Bush took office and during the runup to the war. Those are the people I am asking about. Did they have access to Bush's intelligence sources? Or were they basing their pro-war opinion on Bush's lies? I know that for a lot of regular citizens, they based their pro-war opinions on Bush's lies and felt seriously burned about it later.

We were just gettin over the shock of 9-11 and the thought of another attack was out of the question. The dems CLEARLY thought that Saddam either had or was looking to aquire WMD's and if they allowed this to go on it would NOT be forgiven by the American people if attacked. After all, the Clinton administration was the one that let Osama slip through their fingers more than once. Strike two with Saddam would have probably meant alot of their future electability.

I find it amazing that these same people all of a sudden flip-flopped on their stance, like you stated for yourself, when we didn't find a nuclear launch site. Fact is if Saddam wanted to load a scud with this material he could have. If he wanted to drop this material over Sadr City he could have. So what are the effects on humans if they inhale large quantities of this dust? Do you really think that the U.N.'s lil' lock outs could have stopped him? He loved the money...what about sales of this material to Al-Quada?

I also find it amusing that people talk of Bush going after Iraqs oil like he was putting it in a personal storage facility. We could have handled this like Russia but instead let them have open elections and the choice of who to award contracts to. This "Bush lied for Oil" is laughable to say the least.

Have a good one!:s4:

[McDanger]

What else does Niger export? goats?

[Fugitive]

Onions and livestock apparently :thumbsup:

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

there is only one thing clear about this war:

No one is clear on why we are at war.



some say oil, others say WMDs. where is the proof, how can the proof be verified?


that's all i want. verifiable proof of WHY we are in Iraq.

[Fugitive]

Protecting Israel? They are extremely paranoid and I can see how they percieved Saddam to be a threat and now Ahmadinejad, replacing their leaders with puppets is the safe route for them..

[dragonrider]

there is only one thing clear about this war:

No one is clear on why we are at war.



some say oil, others say WMDs. where is the proof, how can the proof be verified?


that's all i want. verifiable proof of WHY we are in Iraq.

I think we will never know the real reason we WENT into Iraq. But the reason we are IN Iraq is because we WENT in. And now the reason we STAY in is because we can't afford to LEAVE.

[DaBudhaStank]

I think we will never know the real reason we WENT into Iraq. But the reason we are IN Iraq is because we WENT in. And now the reason we STAY in is because we can't afford to LEAVE.

I don't think I've ever heard the conflict in Iraq put so simply yet completely sum up everything. Someone give this man a cookie.

[happiestmferoutthere]

Something else the dems knew.... When Bush announced his "Axis Of Evil" in 2002, he would come up with whatever reason he could to make people scared, so he could go and avenge his fathers failure at removing Saddam Hussein. I realized right then he would invade Iraq. And, I'll be damned, a year later we invaded. I have no doubt if the Iraq war had ended swiftly, we next would have attacked Iran. And if time and money permitted, North Korea would be next. WMDs was the Americans worst fear, so he fed off it. Plain and simple.

[Fugitive]

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program - a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium - reached a Canadian port yesterday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

Link Here (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20080706_Iraq_s_nuclear__yellowcake__moved_to_Cana da.html)

[killerweed420]

I think people try to make the Iraq war more complicated than it is. Bush was just aching to get even with Sadam over his attempted assassination of his dad. And when 9-11 happened there was his excuse. And as a plus a bunch of his chronies would get rich over the war.

[daihashi]

I think we are getting way off track from the original point of this thread that the yellowcake we knew about since 1991 somehow meant Bush had not lied about the Nigerian yellowcake. That's wrong --- he lied about the Nigerian yellowcake.



Maybe it's just me but I've been reading this thread and I have to say I find it hilarious all the flip flopping and people who pull the thread off topic, and then watch these posters backtrack and say "well we're getting off topic now" when someone responds with some evidence or information that should genuinely be looked at and considered when trying to pin the blame on the president.

I have nothing political to add but I felt the need to point out the inconsistencies and hypocrisy by a number of posters in this thread. I wonder if people even realize that they're doing it.

[daihashi]

I think we will never know the real reason we WENT into Iraq. But the reason we are IN Iraq is because we WENT in. And now the reason we STAY in is because we can't afford to LEAVE.

I agree with your first sentence in this statement. Can you agree that taking Saddam out of power was not necessarily a bad thing?

Keep in mind this does not justify us going into Iraq, I just want to know if you believe taking Saddam out of power was good or bad. That is all I'm interested in knowing and all I'll respond to.

I don't believe you answered this question when asked earlier by another poster.

[daihashi]

I think people try to make the Iraq war more complicated than it is. Bush was just aching to get even with Sadam over his attempted assassination of his dad. And when 9-11 happened there was his excuse. And as a plus a bunch of his chronies would get rich over the war.

Evidence please? Otherwise you're just spouting heresay.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I think people try to make the Iraq war more complicated than it is. Bush was just aching to get even with Sadam over his attempted assassination of his dad. And when 9-11 happened there was his excuse. And as a plus a bunch of his chronies would get rich over the war.

When did Saddam try to assassinate his dad? I can't imagine the dictator would even be foolish enough to try; it's not like anybody else stood a chance. :wtf:

[daihashi]

When did Saddam try to assassinate his dad? I can't imagine the dictator would even be foolish enough to try; it's not like anybody else stood a chance. :wtf:

So, Did Saddam Hussein Try to Kill Bush's Dad? - UN Security Council - Global Policy Forum (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2004/1019plot.htm)

Fairly good and accurate article that seems to be written from a neutral point of view.

George W. has said on several occassions spoken about the assassination attempt. However that's not our reasoning for going over there. If you want someone dead you usually just send in a special ops team or hire modern day mercenaries/assassins.

People ignore the fact that Clinton also attacked Iraq.... but I guess good ole Bill Clinton was just trying to get revenge for George W's dad also.. .right?

LOL

CNN - Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance - December 16, 1998 (http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/)

ps: I know you don't think W attacked Iraq for his dad. This post was in response to you but directed more at the people who believe in heresay.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Well I'll be damned, he did try to kill George's daddy! Had America existed a thousand years ago, they'd have all the valid pretext in the world for war! Ah well, that was a better time, a simpler time...