Iraq War Timeline: Lie by Lie

ADK_Forever · 01-06-09, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

THIS IS A METAPHOR AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A THREAT.

How long would you allow your enemy to point a gun at your head?

And, if his gun were his finger?

JMak · 01-06-09, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

That was Hans Blix final report on Iraq, 3 months after the war started.

It was?

Huh. Because in January and February 2003, Blix reported to the Security Council that several thousand chemical bombs remained unaccounted, several thousands litres of anthrax remained unaccounted for, unaccounted weaponized anthrax etc., etc.

But all this was cleared up three months after the war started?

This is what you're arguing?

JMak · 01-06-09, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADK_Forever

That dog just won’t hunt. Nobody is arguing that Hussein wasn’t a bad guy. Why haven’t we invaded allllllllllllllll the other countries run by ruthless murderers?

~sigh~

Because the US and her allies didn't topple Saddam because he was merely a bad guy or because he was a ruthless murderer.

Why do you insist on ignoring the explicit justifications for this war as presented by Bush and the Congress?

Quote:

It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the admin knew the truth about Iraq’s WMDs.

No it hasnt. What you're arguing is that a post-war review of intelligence didn't support some of the intelligence conclusions that the intelligence agencies drew represents that the administration knew the "truth" about Iraqi wmds.

I.e., you're lying, well, at best, you're simply misrepresenting. However, since I have pointed this out to you before, well, that you continue posting this crap means you are lying.

Quote:

There is also plenty of proof that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to invade Iraq since before they took office and they engineered a way to do it.

No, there is information that says Bush and Cheney and Rummy wanted to topple Saddam before the Bush admin took office. There is no evidence that the administration trumped up anything.

BDS has got you firmly in her grips.

Toodles.

bhkad · 01-06-09, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADK_Forever

That dog just won’t hunt. Nobody is arguing that Hussein wasn’t a bad guy. Why haven’t we invaded allllllllllllllll the other countries run by ruthless murderers?

You and Obvious Child are of but one mind, it seems.

I already pointed out to him that it is silly to compare the threat that was Saddam's Iraq with the threat of any other nation, then or now.

Tell me if you can't tell the difference and I will spoon feed you the information.

Here's a clue, Saddam had started two wars with his neighbors, for personal gain, in 10 years.

ADK_Forever · 01-06-09, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMak

It was?

Huh. Because in January and February 2003, Blix reported to the Security Council that several thousand chemical bombs remained unaccounted, several thousands litres of anthrax remained unaccounted for, unaccounted weaponized anthrax etc., etc.

But all this was cleared up three months after the war started?

This is what you're arguing?

You're rewriting history... yet again.

The FEAR was that big old mushroom cloud... remember? Do you want me to post Condi's fear based statement yet again for your education?

You can't dumb down their inaccurate excuse after the fact.

Remember, THAT's the dog that WON'T hunt.

bhkad · 01-06-09, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADK_Forever

And, if his gun were his finger?

Did you not read the interview from 60 Minutes that I posted???

Saddam HAD to make the threat believable.

I feel that when I have to repeat myself that you might be mentally slow.

If so, just tell me and I will gladly make special allowances for you.

Quote:

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.

"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.

"Absolutely," Piro says.

Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions, Tells 60 Minutes Former Iraqi Dictator Didn't Expect U.S. Invasion - CBS News

JMak · 01-06-09, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADK_Forever

You're rewriting history... yet again.

I present Hans Blix's own reports to the UN and cite Bush's and Congress's reasons for war and you accuse me of rewriting history???

Quote:

The FEAR was that big old mushroom cloud... remember? Do you want me to post Condi's fear based statement yet again for your education?

I'm not arguing that at all. Didn't you read what I posted?

Quote:

You can't dumb down their inaccurate excuse after the fact.

Huh?

I simply referred to their justifications. How can that be considered a dumbing down?

Are you even reading posts before going all robot on us?

ADK_Forever · 01-06-09, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

You and Obvious Child are of but one mind, it seems.

Yes, we are just a few of the many who see and speak the truth.

Quote:

I already pointed out to him that it is silly to compare the threat that was Saddam's Iraq with the threat of any other nation, then or now.

And you were wrong.

Quote:

Here's a clue, Saddam had started two wars with his neighbors, for personal gain, in 10 years.

So what? Apples and oranges.

THAT was not why BushCo "SAID" they invaded Iraq.

bhkad · 01-06-09, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADK_Forever

Justifying the invasion of Iraq is quite simply using the “ends justify the means” mentality (now that we all know their WMD threat was wrong!) and is frankly ignorant. The invasion of Iraq was couched under the umbrella of fear. Fear of that mushroom cloud, remember? It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the admin knew the truth about Iraq’s WMDs. Yet, they hid that truth, engaged in conspiracies to cover up the truth and started conspiracies to discredit those exposing the truth. There is also plenty of proof that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to invade Iraq since before they took office and they engineered a way to do it.

This is a corrupt and criminal administration. Read what some of its former members say about the truth behind the reasons we went to war at: An Oral History of the Bush White House: Politics & Power: vanityfair.com

From that article:

There are many more quotes in that article from people who were in the middle of this crap, both in Bush’s administration and in foreign governments.

That he paid for his crimes I shed no tears.

Your article suggests, and rightly so, that the US government had decided that Saddam had to go.

This had been decided as far back as 1998 when Congress approved and Bill Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act which made regime change the official policy of the US government.

We had the legal justification though Clinton chose not to exercise that option.

When Bush was sworn in the situation had not changed. Saddam was still in violation and continued his violations of the 1991 Gulf War Cease Fire resolutions.

Quote:

2003 Invasion of Iraq

When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, it cited non-compliance with the terms of cease-fire for the 1990-1991 Gulf War as its stated casus belli.[11]

Casus belli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

But when we look at ALL of the many forces at work and all the things said and done only this theory accounts for all the loose ends you bring up.

The Bush Administration was determined to follow through on dealing with Saddam once and for all and had the legal justification to do so on day one. But when the Israelis became concerned about Saddam's WMD's and there was no 100% way to know that Saddam was bluffing in his speeches Israel came to the conclusion that it must act in it's own self defense to remove this PERCEIVED threat. A threat that no one could discount.

But if Israel took action to negate the threat it would have rsiked a larger war so we interceded to prevent two worse tragedies. The annihilation of Israel or the annihilation of the entire Middle East.

Here is an article with an anti-Israeli interpretation. It suggests we sought to protect Israel, when in reality, we sought to protect peace and prevent Israel from possibly triggering a more dangerous conflict.

Quote:

Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser
by Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.

The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.

Zelikow made his statements about ”the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.

He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.

Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser

You'll note it is from a far left publication.

bhkad · 01-06-09, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADK_Forever

And you were wrong.

So you think there ARE some other nations that are similar threats as Saddam's Iraq was and which now need to be invaded? I say there are not any in that same category.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADK_Forever

So what? Apples and oranges.

THAT was not why BushCo "SAID" they invaded Iraq.

You boys can be so silly.

You say that Bush lied. But then when I agree with you on that small point you get upset and say that he could ONLY have lied according to YOUR script!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode