Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?
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.
Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by killerweed420
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
Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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:
Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
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!:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
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!
Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
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.
Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
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.
Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
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.
Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?
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
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.
Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?
Well, even if they are a bit off topic, I'll still answer some of your points!
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
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.
Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by birdgirl73
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.