• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Defector 'Curveball' admits he lied about Iraqi WMD

And you forget that Saddam did not let the inspectors go where ever they please.Another reason everybody believed Saddam had WMDs.

We had seen a large amount destoryed. We had no reason to think anything close to growing and gathering was going on. Not to mention what was required to store such things. So, no, nothing was forgottenhere.

So your saying that there was no possibility that he could have moved his operations to another building?

There was not tthe ability to create, house, and store. It requires more than another building.





When you go around suggesting Bush lied for war you are equal to any birther-tard or truffer-tard.

That's funny. Inaccurate, but funny. As we have evidence that Bush was informed, but ignored the actual intel, as I linked for you above, he either lied or was a complete tool. There is not much inbetween.
 
What serious doubts? One or two men against the fact Saddam has a history using WMDs,WMDs were found in Iraq, Saddam did not let the inspectors inspect where they wanted, everybody and their mother said Saddam had WMDs even before Bush was in office said Saddam had WMDs does not equal serious doubts.

More than one or two, but they were the lynch pin of the arguments. Their intel was used, and they were the meat of the argument. History doesn't equal fact, or even evididence. It gives cause to ask, but not to invade.
 
Saddam failed to abide by the sanctions imposed by the UN after desert storm. the US invasion was justified on those grounds alone. everything else is Bush bash bedwetting and handwringing
 
We had seen a large amount destoryed.

You did not see it all destroyed. You don't even know if he was making more. IS there some standard Are you supposed to big a neon sign on the buidling that says WMDs made here?

We had no reason to think anything close to growing and gathering was going on. Not to mention what was required to store such things. So, no, nothing was forgottenhere.


There was not tthe ability to create, house, and store. It requires more than another building.

What kind of places do you need to store WMDs? Please enlighten us

That's funny. Inaccurate, but funny. As we have evidence that Bush was informed, but ignored the actual intel, as I linked for you above, he either lied or was a complete tool. There is not much inbetween.
Saddam has a history using WMDs,WMDs were found in Iraq, Saddam did not let the inspectors inspect where they wanted, everybody and their mother said Saddam had WMDs even before Bush was in office said Saddam had WMDs. Why do you ignore these facts?
 
Saddam failed to abide by the sanctions imposed by the UN after desert storm. the US invasion was justified on those grounds alone. everything else is Bush bash bedwetting and handwringing

No, only the UN had the right to enforce that. They were UN sanctions and not US sanctions. The US acted outside the UN, and thus that can't hold as a rationale. Bush made an argument that was knowingly false. When you do that, you lie. There is no way around that.
 
1. Saddam had used WMDs in the past

2. Saddam claimed to still have WMDs

case closed

If you want to blame someone, blame Saddam.
 
No, only the UN had the right to enforce that. They were UN sanctions and not US sanctions. The US acted outside the UN, and thus that can't hold as a rationale. Bush made an argument that was knowingly false. When you do that, you lie. There is no way around that.

The only people lying are you die hard Bush bashing conspiracy theorists. A handful of naysayers does not equal doubt.
 
Last edited:
You did not see it all destroyed. You don't even know if he was making more. IS there some standard Are you supposed to big a neon sign on the buidling that says WMDs made here?

We have the testimoney of what was destoryed. We know that the country is boxed in, and we have a reasonable idea how limiting that was. But, yes, you have to have actual evidence. Lack of evidence is not equal to actual evidence.

What kind of places do you need to store WMDs? Please enlighten us

We covered this some years ago James. As I recall, we discussed ehavily why those shells had degraded and that Saddam did nto have the capacity to store such weapons. Do we really need to cover the same ground again?

Saddam has a history using WMDs,WMDs were found in Iraq, Saddam did not let the inspectors inspect where they wanted, everybody and their mother said Saddam had WMDs even before Bush was in office said Saddam had WMDs. Why do you ignore these facts?

I'm sorry James, but nothign matching the claim made was found. Because your personal standard is a low bar doesn't mean we found what Bush claimed. We didn't. He had nothing that warranted the cost of invading. Sorry.
 
The only people lying are you die hard Bush bashing conspiracy theorists. A handful of nay sayers does not equal doubt.

James, not so. We ahve the evidence. Bush knew of the doubts, the lack of evidence, and yet he went out and claimed affirmatively that Saddam had and was doing what he didn't. No reasonable person calls this anythign other than a lie. If it were me or a democrat, you'd call it a lie as well. You knwo you would. ;)
 
Only time will tell through historians, really, as documents and information surface...
And it will likely confirm what most of planet earth has figured out.
 
We have the testimoney of what was destoryed. We know that the country is boxed in, and we have a reasonable idea how limiting that was. But, yes, you have to have actual evidence. Lack of evidence is not equal to actual evidence.

A lack of evidence that he destroyed all the WMDs is somehow evidence that he didn't have any more WMDs or was not making more?


We covered this some years ago James. As I recall, we discussed ehavily why those shells had degraded and that Saddam did nto have the capacity to store such weapons. Do we really need to cover the same ground again?


This doesn't look like buried at the last minute in sand stuff.
WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com

I'm sorry James, but nothign matching the claim made was found. Because your personal standard is a low bar doesn't mean we found what Bush claimed. We didn't. He had nothing that warranted the cost of invading. Sorry.

Your couple of naysayers is a low standard. If this was some other dictator with no history of having WMDs and using WMDs then you might have a point.Those few naysayers might have had credibility.
 
yeah, I'm sure at some point in the future someone will dig up every single square inch of Iraq and prove once and for all that Saddam didn't have the WMDs he claimed he had.

when I was over there, we found freakin planes buried in the sand. Iraq is 168753 square miles of mostly unpopulated desert. just because the, to date, half assed attempts to find WMD caches haven't been successful doesn't mean that there aren't any buried somewhere in the remote Iraqi desert.
 
Last edited:
James, not so. We ahve the evidence. Bush knew of the doubts, the lack of evidence, and yet he went out and claimed affirmatively that Saddam had and was doing what he didn't. No reasonable person calls this anythign other than a lie. If it were me or a democrat, you'd call it a lie as well. You knwo you would. ;)

It looks like you are never going to give up on your Bush basher conspiracy theory.
 
This is retarded, where are the mobile chemical weapons labs? Wheres the yellowcake?

:O

"The purple dragon under my bed is there but only you cant see it because I hid it really well but it existed."

I respect your positivity, the cup is half full and these are merely half-truths.

Clinging to WMD's ... still... a decade later. Please this is ****ing sad.
 
I looked in the hall closet for my coat, it wasn't there...proof positive that there is no coat in my house.

bush bashtards are the ones wetting themselves screaming Bush lied, the burden of proof is on them to show that he did lie.
 
This is retarded, where are the mobile chemical weapons labs? Wheres the yellowcake?

:O

"The purple dragon under my bed is there but only you cant see it because I hid it really well but it existed."

I respect your positivity, the cup is half full and these are merely half-truths.

Clinging to WMD's ... still... a decade later. Please this is ****ing sad.

Still clinging to the fact Bush lied for war is ****ing sad.

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com
 
Erudite response... the yellowcake was shown to be a lie, as were the mobile chem weapons labs, Just because you gamble on a lie and end up living in a motel rather than starving in a gutter doesnt mean there was no lie. Please, make yourself useful and why don't you directly research which intelligence led directly to WMD finds that weren't the tattered undeployable remains of efforts during our alliance with them, stumbled upon years later, half defunct. No connections with al-quaeda, no smoking gun. Half the country thought Iraq was responsable for 9-11 and that they had nukes that were coming our way. That's the message they conveyed. The truth is far from this.
 
This was before I retired and as I recall doing research on the subject for my Show at the time the evidence was much more than one defectors claims.

For one thing Saddam did his best to make the world believe he had WMDs to insure that Iran would not attack Iraq again.

Saddam also played cat and mouse with UN inspectors trying to find evidence of WMDs in the form of a Nuclear Program and it interpreted as hiding the same when in truth it was to keep his lack of them from coming to light.

We also knew that Saddam did have Chemical weapons because he had used them on his own people. What we didn't know was to what extent they went.

Turns out he had a pretty big stock pile of Chemical Artillery Shells in that warehouse that was burned making a lot of the Allied Troops sick in the process.

I wonder if Curveball was payed for this story. His lies in my mind were used only to varify what the UN, ours and other Intelligences, already believed.

The Left will once again ignore the volume of evidence used to get the Bi-Partisan votes in Congress that authorized the invasion
 
This was before I retired and as I recall doing research on the subject for my Show at the time the evidence was much more than one defectors claims.

For one thing Saddam did his best to make the world believe he had WMDs to insure that Iran would not attack Iraq again.

Saddam also played cat and mouse with UN inspectors trying to find evidence of WMDs in the form of a Nuclear Program and it interpreted as hiding the same when in truth it was to keep his lack of them from coming to light.

We also knew that Saddam did have Chemical weapons because he had used them on his own people. What we didn't know was to what extent they went.

Turns out he had a pretty big stock pile of Chemical Artillery Shells in that warehouse that was burned making a lot of the Allied Troops sick in the process.

I wonder if Curveball was payed for this story. His lies in my mind were used only to varify what the UN, ours and other Intelligences, already believed.

The Left will once again ignore the volume of evidence used to get the Bi-Partisan votes in Congress that authorized the invasion

You're part right. But no one is arguing just Curveball. Chalibi and his heros in error were a group. curveball just took center stage because it was unbeliviable that he his intel was used. And we also have the coearsed testimoney of al-Libi, and the ignoring of evidence to the contrary, not to mention the entire Niger affair. All along the way, the very doubted evidence was presented to the public as if it were gospel. Doing so is to lie.

And those stockpiles you mention were degraded, and not capable of being used as weapons. However, even if they were, they would not have amtched Bush's claims. Bush did not stay with what most of the world believed, that there were some wmds left. Bush took it further and declared, with absolutely no credible evidence, that Saddam was growing and gathering. This was a lie. Not just wrong. All the evidenc ehe presented on that was doubted across the board, and he did not present it that way.

And congress never voted to declare war, or to invade. At the time, when congress critiers spoke up, they lost seats their jobs, so eing cowards, they voted to pass the buck the president. So while I condemn them for doing so, don't pretend that they voted to go to war.
 
I looked in the hall closet for my coat, it wasn't there...proof positive that there is no coat in my house.

bush bashtards are the ones wetting themselves screaming Bush lied, the burden of proof is on them to show that he did lie.

Like I said, I don't believe that Bush lied, but Bush was certainly lied to. Curveball's admission is lead pipe cinch proof of that.
 
Like I said, I don't believe that Bush lied, but Bush was certainly lied to. Curveball's admission is lead pipe cinch proof of that.

I don't see why we're so hung up on whether or not Bush lied. The end result was still the same. Whether or not he knowingly or unknowingly misled the American public is irrelevant, and our involvement in Iraq was still a strategic mistake.
 
Like I said, I don't believe that Bush lied, but Bush was certainly lied to. Curveball's admission is lead pipe cinch proof of that.

While I agree with StillBallin75, the fact is those reporting it to the president said they doubted him. So, someone comes to you and says we have this, but it's likely false. You say OK, but tell everyone we have this information, but don't tell us it is doubted, why would you not call that lying?
 
While I agree with StillBallin75, the fact is those reporting it to the president said they doubted him. So, someone comes to you and says we have this, but it's likely false. You say OK, but tell everyone we have this information, but don't tell us it is doubted, why would you not call that lying?

I won't go as far as to say Bush lied, but the onus was on his administration to prove beyond all doubt that the casus belli was sound and justified. The fact that it wasn't sound leads me to the conclusion that they likely had ulterior motives in invading Iraq (or just plain didn't know what they were doing).
 
Yes, he is ultimately responsible for our going to war based on a lie, but we need to look at the larger picture.

The larger picture is that the world is not a safer place, Osama bin Laden is likely still alive, we are involved in two extremely expensive wars, and all of it was apparently because Bush relied on one person's intel. I would say that makes Bush one huge failure.
 
Back
Top Bottom