Hussein

[Topaz]

The following article states the views of Hussein after he was held prisoner. He said he didn't have WMD's but needed to say that to keep Iran at bay which was his greatest enemy in his view. He , also said he would have asked for Bush's help if he needed it against Iran. I wonder what Hussein would be like to play poker? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2..._files_sho.html

[Shady]

Yep. Even his own generals believed they had WMD. That's why it's so laughable when people claim President Bush lied America into the war in Iraq. As it turns out, the only person really lying about WMD was Saddam Hussein.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yep. Even his own generals believed they had WMD. That's why it's so laughable when people claim President Bush lied America into the war in Iraq. As it turns out, the only person really lying about WMD was Saddam Hussein.

Yep....and he was a very bad poker player. President Bush called his bluff.

[KrustyKidd]

Yep....and he was a very bad poker player. President Bush called his bluff.

Must be a slow news week. This has been common knowledge for over a year and a half.

[Moonlight Graham]

Yep. Even his own generals believed they had WMD. That's why it's so laughable when people claim President Bush lied America into the war in Iraq. As it turns out, the only person really lying about WMD was Saddam Hussein.

Bush lied America into a war in Iraq. Uhm, were you watching the U.N. slideshow they had Powell present? Or how about some yellowcake from Africa? Or the "links" between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. It was all B.S., among tons of other B.S. and a garbage NIE that seemingly few in Congress even bothered to read.

Even say Bush didn't lie, you don't go into a war based on best guesses. You better be 100% sure they have WMD's. Oops.

Why do ostriches like you still have your head in the sand?? Is it a partisan thing or something?

[bush_cheney2004]

Bush lied America into a war in Iraq. Uhm, were you watching the U.N. slideshow they had Powell present? Or how about some yellowcake from Africa? Or the "links" between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. It was all B.S., among tons of other B.S. and a garbage NIE that seemingly few in Congress even bothered to read.

Nonsense......

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted

77-23

to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution,

296-133

.

Even say Bush didn't lie, you don't go into a war based on best guesses. You better be 100% sure they have WMD's. Oops.

Sure you do.....if it was that easy, even Canada would have done it.

Why do ostriches like you still have your head in the sand?? Is it a partisan thing or something?

What is partisan about wanting to continue US policy for Iraq?

[Moonlight Graham]

Nonsense......

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted

77-23

to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution,

296-133

.

Yes, Congress approved the resolution...based on a falsified NIE (here it from the mouth's of former CIA members: PBS Frontline) which few of them even read (Dennis Kucinich even had Clinton admit during the 2008 Democratic debates that she didn't read the NIE) , and influenced by pressure from public sentiment...sentiment based on the admin's propaganda crap they had been spewing since 9/11.

So yes, i blame the Bush admin foremost, but also blame Congress for being idiots also.

What is partisan about wanting to continue US policy for Iraq?

Ok, i'll expand: You'd either have to be ignorant of the facts, a close-minded partisan, or just plain stupid to want to continue U.S. Iraq policy. Just my opinion of course.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Moonlight Graham

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, Congress approved the resolution...based on a falsified NIE (here it from the mouth's of former CIA members: PBS Frontline) which few of them even read (Dennis Kucinich even had Clinton admit during the 2008 Democratic debates that she didn't read the NIE) , and influenced by pressure from public sentiment...sentiment based on the admin's propaganda crap they had been spewing since 9/11.

You're still wrong.....many did read the NIE and voted against the war resolution.

So yes, i blame the Bush admin foremost, but also blame Congress for being idiots also.

Irrelevant....you can't blame anybody.

Ok, i'll expand: You'd either have to be ignorant of the facts, a close-minded partisan, or just plain stupid to want to continue U.S. Iraq policy. Just my opinion of course.

Your expanded opinion has been noted....it is devoid of reality.

[Moonlight Graham]

You're still wrong.....many did read the NIE and voted against the war resolution.

you're right, such as Dennis Kucinich. But as Hillary being an example, many others just got notes from staff on the "gist" of the report. I would think many items would be legitimately digested this way by members of Congress since it would require too much time to read the massive texts put before them, however something as important as an NIE to go into war i think would demand ones full attention.

Irrelevant....you can't blame anybody.

So it's nobody's fault Iraq was B.S. before and after the invasion?

Your expanded opinion has been noted....it is devoid of reality.

How so? How do you sum up invasion? Justified? Successful? Americans and the world told the truth?

[KrustyKidd]

Bush lied America into a war in Iraq. Uhm, were you watching the U.N. slideshow they had Powell present? Or how about some yellowcake from Africa?

Hang ten Daddy O!

Bush lied, people died.

Might work for your mindless morons but in the real world, you have to actually produce a systematic regime of lies rather than mistakes based on shitty intel. Got one?

[bush_cheney2004]

you're right, such as Dennis Kucinich. But as Hillary being an example, many others just got notes from staff on the "gist" of the report. I would think many items would be legitimately digested this way by members of Congress since it would require too much time to read the massive texts put before them, however something as important as an NIE to go into war i think would demand ones full attention.

You are missing other elements and context. The decision to invade Iraq was an American policy and political process.

So it's nobody's fault Iraq was B.S. before and after the invasion?

Where do you want to start with laying blame.....Queen Elizabeth? It is a pointless exercise.

How so? How do you sum up invasion? Justified? Successful? Americans and the world told the truth?

Again...irrelevant. The invasion of Iraq was a continuation of UK/US policy stemming from Gulf War I.

It is a policy success if objectives were met.....Saddam is pushing up date trees in Awja.

Edited July 1, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Moonlight Graham]

You are missing other elements and context. The decision to invade Iraq was an American policy and political process.

I agree. However, had members of Congress and the public known that there was no real evidence that Saddam was creating nukes, had links to Al-Qaeda or 9/11, or had WMD's of any kind do you think this policy may have still gone forward?

Where do you want to start with laying blame.....Queen Elizabeth? It is a pointless exercise.

That's a slippery-slope argument. It isn't pointless because somebody should be accountable for lying a country into war, and there needs to be some kind of precedent so that something like this never happens again.

[bush_cheney2004]

I agree. However, had members of Congress and the public known that there was no real evidence that Saddam was creating nukes, had links to Al-Qaeda or 9/11, or had WMD's of any kind do you think this policy may have still gone forward?

Yes...any pretext would do given existing US policy and Public Law to overthrow Saddam's regime. For instance, Saddam was in material breach of Gulf War I surrender instruments.

That's a slippery-slope argument. It isn't pointless because somebody should be accountable for lying a country into war, and there needs to be some kind of precedent so that something like this never happens again.

Fine, but let's start with your British Empire in the region if that be your goal. Any US president has the authority to start a war; the US Congress agreed. The Americans have the will and means to do so. Nobody stopped them or threatened to do so.

Edited July 1, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[KrustyKidd]

I agree. However, had members of Congress and the public known that there was no real evidence that Saddam was creating nukes, had links to Al-Qaeda or 9/11, or had WMD's of any kind do you think this policy may have still gone forward?

There was evidence - the 2002 NIE.

That's a slippery-slope argument. It isn't pointless because somebody should be accountable for lying a country into war, and there needs to be some kind of precedent so that something like this never happens again.

And now, could you present the actual lies please?