Bush Administration lied to America 935 times to invade Iraq

[ryan costa]

There is one important distinction between the Bush camp and the Democrats who denounced Saddam Hussein/Iraq before Bush got into office. These Democrats didn't invade and occupy Iraq: They weren't the quarterback when Bush decided we needed a touchdown.

The Clinton regime may have driven by Iraq in a sports car and thrown water balloons at Iraq: They didn't crash the sports car into Iraq and then decide to build a garage around it.

What can Bush defenders say? The democrats didn't want to invade Iraq because they didn't believe in Freedom? They didn't want to order a baked potato because they didn't believe in Sour Cream? wth.

[Ryan Salo]

Valerie,

I think unfortunately that some do want us to fail simply to point the finger. It is sickening.

The problem is that if we would have done what many anti-war folks said and not gone in Iraq there would still be blood and probably more of it there.

The blood would not be American but that of innocent Iraqi woman and children.

After all isn't it easier to just ignore death and torture when it isn't an American victim? We all do it everyday...

[Ryan Salo]

These Democrats didn't invade and occupy Iraq

"In the Senate, 28 Democrats voted Yes (56% of the delegation, including Senators Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Bayh, and Daschle) and 22 voted No; 49 Republicans voted Yes and one voted No (Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island). Note that the Democrats controlled the Senate and could have postponed a vote on the Resolution until after the November election."

Another obvious change was 911.

How easily people want to change the facts...

[ryan costa]

None of the facts have changed.

The only thing 911 can be excused for is perhaps driving more congressmen to hysteria and gullibility on the Iraq issue.

[Valerie Molinski]

Valerie,

I think unfortunately that some do want us to fail simply to point the finger. It is sickening.

The problem is that if we would have done what many anti-war folks said and not gone in Iraq there would still be blood and probably more of it there.

The blood would not be American but that of innocent Iraqi woman and children.

After all isn't it easier to just ignore death and torture when it isn't an American victim? We all do it everyday...

I dont disagree with you in many of your points. Something needed to be done.. but I feel like much of this occurred under false pretenses.

Bush: He's got WMDs... CIA: No he doesn't.
Bush: Well, he's in league with Al Queda. CIA: No he isnt.
Bush: Well, we need to free those people anyway. Others: Yes but can we do it with the support of the rest of the world?
Bush: Well, he tried to kill my daddy! I'm going in!

And mission accomplished? No. We were misled by cooked intel to fight wars on two fronts because we were attacked on our own soil. But those behind the attacks? Still free in the foothills of Afghanistan and Pakistan. That should have been the main focus, but this administration had been talking about invading Iraq before even Sept 11 and they were hoping that would give them the reason for carte blanche if they could prove something/anything. And it did. But now people want answers. There is nothing wrong with that.

And FWIW, people in China are oppressed and imprisoned or killed by their govt every day... yet they are our biggest trade partner? Genocide in Sudan? No worries... they dont have oil. So to even talk about this invasion as a higher calling to free the oppressed people is laughable at best. Sacrifices should be made, yes, but for the right reasons and at the right times.

[Ivor Karabatkovic]

Sacrifices should be made, yes, but for the right reasons and at the right times.

all bow down to the almighty Molinski

Valerie I think that's the most valid point I've heard anyone make about this subject for quite some time.

[sharon kinsella]

Bill what is wrong with you?

We want the war to end so these kids can come home. ALIVE!

Your George has provoked, prolonged and promoted the deception which has been perpetrated on the American people and our kids over there.

[Stephen Eisel]

Valerie,

I think unfortunately that some do want us to fail simply to point the finger. It is sickening.

The problem is that if we would have done what many anti-war folks said and not gone in Iraq there would still be blood and probably more of it there.

The blood would not be American but that of innocent Iraqi woman and children.

After all isn't it easier to just ignore death and torture when it isn't an American victim? We all do it everyday...

I dont disagree with you in many of your points. Something needed to be done.. but I feel like much of this occurred under false pretenses.

Bush: He's got WMDs... CIA: No he doesn't.
Bush: Well, he's in league with Al Queda. CIA: No he isnt.
Bush: Well, we need to free those people anyway. Others: Yes but can we do it with the support of the rest of the world?
Bush: Well, he tried to kill my daddy! I'm going in!

And mission accomplished? No. We were misled by cooked intel to fight wars on two fronts because we were attacked on our own soil. But those behind the attacks? Still free in the foothills of Afghanistan and Pakistan. That should have been the main focus, but this administration had been talking about invading Iraq before even Sept 11 and they were hoping that would give them the reason for carte blanche if they could prove something/anything. And it did. But now people want answers. There is nothing wrong with that.

And FWIW, people in China are oppressed and imprisoned or killed by their govt every day... yet they are our biggest trade partner? Genocide in Sudan? No worries... they dont have oil. So to even talk about this invasion as a higher calling to free the oppressed people is laughable at best. Sacrifices should be made, yes, but for the right reasons and at the right times.

Iraqs failure to comply with their terms of surrender is the big difference and UN Resolutions 1441, 678, 686, 687,688, 707, 715, 949, 1051,1060,1115, 1134, 1137, 1154,1194, 1205, and 1284.

[Jim DeVito]

I think it all needs to be brought back to the big picture. Regardless of all the lies/not lies, all the truths/half-truths, political foresight/lack there of, bantering on one side or the other. We need to look at what it all boils down to. Are any of us (that includes EVERYBODY in the whole wide world) really any better off because of the actions taken in the last years. In the end is that not the point of a world superpower such as ours. To make the world a better place for EVERYBODY and EVERYBODY'S kids. Think for a second of all the people who have gave there lives. (once again that includes EVERYBODY in the whole planet.) Are we really doing them justice by sitting around bickering about stuff that will one day be long forgotten? What have we in the last years left for the our kids to inherit?

Of course the only answer is world peace. But that only gets you first place in a beauty contest not the leader of the free world. Who Knows?

And because we all like pretty pictures and facts form biased sources he is one of my own.

Enjoy!!

[Stephen Eisel]

Bush: Well, he's in league with Al Queda. CIA: No he isnt.

http://hudson.org/files/publications/mu ... rticle.pdf

[Stephen Eisel]

I think it all needs to be brought back to the big picture. Regardless of all the lies/not lies, all the truths/half-truths, political foresight/lack there of, bantering on one side or the other. We need to look at what it all boils down to. Are any of us (that includes EVERYBODY in the whole wide world) really any better off because of the actions taken in the last years. In the end is that not the point of a world superpower such as ours. To make the world a better place for EVERYBODY and EVERYBODY'S kids. Think for a second of all the people who have gave there lives. (once again that includes EVERYBODY in the whole planet.) Are we really doing them justice by sitting around bickering about stuff that will one day be long forgotten? What have we in the last years left for the our kids to inherit?

Of course the only answer is world peace. But that only gets you first place in a beauty contest not the leader of the free world. Who Knows?

And because we all like pretty pictures and facts form biased sources he is one of my own.

Enjoy!!

excellent post!

[Stephen Eisel]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/ ... 9494.shtml

(CBS) Saddam Hussein initially didn't think the U.S. would invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, so he kept the fact that he had none a secret to prevent an Iranian invasion he believed could happen. The Iraqi dictator revealed this thinking to George Piro, the FBI agent assigned to interrogate him after his capture.

Piro, in his first television interview, relays this and other revelations to 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley this Sunday, Jan. 27, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Piro spent almost seven months debriefing Saddam in a plan based on winning his confidence by convincing him that Piro was an important envoy who answered to President Bush. This and being Saddam's sole provider of items like writing materials and toiletries made the toppled Iraqi president open up to Piro, a Lebanese-American and one of the few FBI agents who spoke Arabic.

"He told me he initially miscalculated... President Bush’s intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998...a four-day aerial attack," says Piro. "He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack." "He didn't believe the U.S. would invade?" asks Pelley, "No, not initially," answers Piro.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Well, I realize that many of us have put the red white and blue koolaid down for long enough to grasp seconds of clarity, which is a good thing.

But we still have two major problems.

1) What is expected of our presidents.
That would be a zero tolerance for lying. On any level, personal and public.

2) How do we prove to the rest of the world, our democracy works, and that we have not turned into a government state that is set on empire building?

These are the only two questions really left, as our very poor political system tries to clean up the the house after the drunk frat brother from Yale broke everything.


FWIW



.

[Valerie Molinski]

Iraqs failure to comply with their terms of surrender is the big difference and UN Resolutions 1441, 678, 686, 687,688, 707, 715, 949, 1051,1060,1115, 1134, 1137, 1154,1194, 1205, and 1284.

yes, they failed to comply- it was serious and heading to a crisis point... but we went in there with guns a blazing without the approval or support of the UN. This should not be our directive in this world. The point of the UN is to work in concert with nations of the world to solve these issues, not for us to act like cowboys and igore the rest of the world when it suits us.

And amen, Jim. My president is held to a higher standard... zero tolerance for lying. Clinton lied and was punished for it, yet no one is bringing up punishment for this administration when it has been proven time and again that they have lied or blurred the truth.

This is a whole other post, but the only word I have for them is SHADY. Missing emails from Cheney when the Valerie Plame leak happened? This is just par for the already horrible course from this administration.

[ryan costa]

These Democrats didn't invade and occupy Iraq

"In the Senate, 28 Democrats voted Yes (56% of the delegation, including Senators Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Bayh, and Daschle) and 22 voted No; 49 Republicans voted Yes and one voted No (Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island). Note that the Democrats controlled the Senate and could have postponed a vote on the Resolution until after the November election."

Another obvious change was 911.

How easily people want to change the facts...

Are the words of this resolution published anywhere? Is this the resolution that actually passed? Cuz they tend to vote on the same version of things multiple times before it passes. That is how Bush and Cheney pulled that "my opponent voted to raise taxes x-hundred times".

I'm guessing the resolution contained nebulous language that could or did authorize any range of initiatives in Iraq in response to particular sets of circumstances. They gave the President discretionary powers and he abused them.

Things are pretty bad if the only defense of Bush-Cheney is that the Democrats and other Republicans are nearly as bad as they are. Is that that Moral Relativism stuff? What is that?

But Bush is the one who said, "I am the Decider". And he was President while saying it. The big decisions were apparently his. Completely dismantling Iraqs infrastructure and the resulting sectarian violence were apparently his accomplishments alone. The explanation that it is Congress's fault for voting for him isn't very productive. I'd be happy to see most incumbents in Congress voted out of office. That ain't usually an option though.