If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by G4scott, Apr 20, 2004.

  1. G4scott macrumors 68020

    G4scott

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #1
    I just thought it was appropriate for everyone to see what some other people's thoughts on Iraq and WMD's were before the war on Iraq...

     
  2. G4scott thread starter macrumors 68020

    G4scott

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #2
    But wait, there's more...

     
  3. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #3
    The obvious difference being that none of these people went to war with the wrong information.
     
  4. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #4
    While it's hard to know exactly what information these people were privy to, let's not forget that the majority of that info was false and or exaggerated. SH was a threat to stability in the middle east and he was a grave threat to the people of Iraq. As far as the WMD, bad information in, bad information out. I think we can all agree that the US was clueless as to what SH was up to. That, I think, is the greatest tragedy.
     
  5. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #5
    What's your point? That Democrats can be wrong, too? I will agree with that. I think Kerry's vote to support the war was wrong -- as was every other yes vote taken that day.

    A question: couldn't you have given us an excerpt of the story, and then provided a link? Or was the source of the story a little embarrassing.

    here is the source:

    http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    Ok, lets try them all on lying. Just start at the top ok? :D
     
  7. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #7
    Let me clarify my previous post: I am very angry at the Democrats for going along with the president during the first three years of Bush's administration. The Dems are just as much to blame for getting us into Iraq and for the deficits, etc. But that does not mean that it is OK to continue down this same road.

    Continuing to support Bush is like leaving the pitcher in after he has given up ten runs; like staying with the same girlfriend after you fined out she's really a guy :eek: ; like brushing your teeth with your hair gel, and continuing to do it. Change can be good.
     
  8. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #8
    What difference does the source makes if he's correct.

    Off topic -- Anyway to subscribe to a thread without actually having to put in a post?
     
  9. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #9
    Excellent post numedia...I feel the same as you, but you have to admit it would 've been near political suicide for the Democrats to not follow suit in the post 9/11 political climate...it is a rough time for the Democrats as they are already on the defensive from the republican onslaught, subsequently followed poor policy and now look somewhat spineless and flip-floppers on the issues...of course in this instance, as you noted, I would rather have a flip-flopper than someone who is consistent in bad policy (ie Bush)...and there is the whole hindsight is 20/20 thing...
     
  10. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #10
    Yes, go up to "Thread Tools". There is a pull down menu and you'll find subscribe there.

    Concerning sources: I'm in the media business -- so the source of the news is just as important to me as the content. It is important that I can trust the source. That doesn't mean I don't read, or won't trust news from new sources, it just means I will want to be careful.

    But as I said, I won't argue the point that many Democrats should be held to account for Iraq, I just don't see how that gets Bush off the hook. He is, after all, the President.
     
  11. G4scott thread starter macrumors 68020

    G4scott

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #11
    No, but if they were in the position to make that decision, how can you know that they wouldn't?

    The point is that blame for the inherent lack of WMD's in Iraq can't be placed on Bush alone. Bad intelligence or whatever it was, Bush wasn't the only one who thought Iraq had WMD's before the war.
     
  12. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #12
    Well for starters, Bill Clinton WAS in a position to make that decision and the evidence wasn't compelling enough for him to go to war.

    Further, the Democratic Party doesn't contain a 'neo' wing that has wanted to get a toehold in the Middle East for years. The authors and supporters of PNAC were not from the Democratic Party.

    The argument you are putting forth amounts to 'well everyone else lied about it so it's ok if I do too'. Sorry, but I don't buy that one.
     
  13. Lyle macrumors 68000

    Lyle

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    Madison, Alabama
    #13
    I don't think that's the argument that G4scott was making, but I won't put words in his mouth. No, the problem I have with people claiming that the president lied is that, by definition, it means he made false statement(s) with the intent to deceive. I think it's clear that a lot of people, Republicans and Democrats alike, got some bad information from their advisors and other intelligence sources about the situation in Iraq. Do you still assert that those people are liars, if they honestly believed that that information was true when they said it?
     
  14. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #14
    I'll remember this for the future. Note to self: Source is irrelevant to SH. HE doesn't care who said it so long as it "proves" his point and allows him to distract himself from the truth.
     
  15. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #15
    It is really just a distraction technique. I'm not sure if it is meant to distract us from the truth or if he just needs it to distract himself from the truth.
     
  16. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #16
    You, I, everyone (even governments) have certain viewpoints which they have accumulated through life, or inherit in the case of political parties.

    When faced with evidence, especially this sort of "intelligence", there is a tendency to cherry-pick the bits which suit our agenda and ignore, or even suppress, those that don't.

    It seems that in this case the selection was extreme, the sources weren't checked and the result was an unnecessary war. And that's being generous!

    Maybe this isn't technically lying, but it is as disingenuous as was asking Saddam to prove he didn't have WMD!
     
  17. Lyle macrumors 68000

    Lyle

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    Madison, Alabama
    #17
    I think that, for the most part, I agree with everything you just said. No, really! ;)

    But do you agree that it's inconsistent to call President Bush a liar (or, alternatively, claim that he cherry-picked the available intelligence) without making the same claim about the other politicians listed in the original post? It does seem that there's a double standard being applied.
     
  18. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #18
    As pseodobrit said, the difference is that, whilst many thought Saddam to be a tyrant and were persuaded that he may be a threat, I don't think any of them, on their own (ie Tony Blair), would have pushed for war, or would even have deemed an invasion at that point in time was either justified or necessary.
     
  19. kgarner macrumors 68000

    kgarner

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Location:
    Utah
    #19
    I thnk the question is not whether or not Saddam had WMDs. That was well documented following the first Gulf War. Then we bagan the inspections which were eventually ended by Saddam (probably because they were getting close to finding his big stuff). Then everybody just kind of left him alone for 3-4 years without any supervision. If he had them after the war , and the inspectors job was preempted prior to completion (by Saddam), then were did the rest go? Do you actually, think that Saddam voluntarily dismantled them for us? I think the question here is what happened to the weapons he had, who did he give/sell them to?

    My $0.02.
     
  20. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #20
    The U.N. was conducting inspections right up until the U.S. said they were going in. The U.N. inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, then reported their results on Jan. 27, 2003. In that presentation, they reported that they could not find WMDs, and that Iraq was cooperating.

    "Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access."

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.excerpts/

    Days following these presentations, the U.N. debated the reports:

    The foreign ministers of China, Russia and France said the inspections need time to work.

    "Inspections are producing results. ... The option of inspections has not been taken to the end," French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said. "The use of force would be so fraught with risk for people, for the region and for international stability that it should only be envisioned as a last resort."

    . . . We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear activities in Iraq," ElBaradei said, adding that there are "a number of issues under investigation, and we're not in a position to reach a conclusion about them."

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq.un/

    So, despite the fact that the inspectors could not find WMDs, the U.S. went to war. Article II, Section IV of the U.N. charter states:* "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

    The Iraq war was (is) a war of aggression -- something that I believe is at odds with the ideals of the vast majority of Americans.
     
  21. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #21
    Numedia however the blow quote is more important to me than the fact that they did not find WMD's. All that showed me was they were hidden too well.
    They were suppoe to be Inspectors not detectors. Saddam was suppose to show them his WMD's so they could inspect them and dispatch them appropriately. They weren't suppose to go hunting for them. If he destroyed them he should've showed them were they were destroyed and the dump site of the contaminate remains. If he gave them away. Thats a bigger problem.
     
  22. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #22
    i first read SH as "Saddam Hussein"
     
  23. kgarner macrumors 68000

    kgarner

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Location:
    Utah
    #23
    source:link

    source: link
     
  24. Lyle macrumors 68000

    Lyle

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    Madison, Alabama
    #24
    So are you saying it's the consequences of a false statement that make it a lie? That even if Bush believed what he was saying was true, even if he wasn't intentionally misleading the American people, that because we went to war over those statement(s) he is therefore a liar? It sounds like you're making an "It's not a lie if you don't get caught" argument.

    I understand and agree that other leaders who believed exactly the same information (i.e. that Saddam had WMD and was therefore a threat to the U.S.) might have made a different decision about going to war. If I had been in that position, that I truly believed Saddam was a threat to the U.S., I'm not sure what I would have done.

    But that was not my question. ;)
     
  25. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #25
    Bush knew he was lying! He knew he didn't have the intelligence to back up his claims.
     

Share This Page