Truth or hype?Did Bush lie about Saddam threat

[frodo_biguns]

Belling just kicks ass.

At the root of the liberal/Democrat/news media obsession with the CIA leak story is the desire to prove that BUSH LIED. Their premise is that Bush hyped the Saddam Hussein weapons of mass destruction threat and tried to destroy anybody who wanted to get the real truth out.
Did the president lie? What follows is his address to the nation the night we hit Iraq. Read it closely and determine whether these were lies or sincere beliefs based on the best intelligence available at the time.

* * *

Earlier today I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its ability to threaten its neighbors. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference. He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but civilians, firing Scud missiles at citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran, even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. The situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

Without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years. If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community led by the United States had simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and some day - make no mistake - he will use it again as he has in the past.

If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check on Saddam will be destroyed. That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, I have ordered a strong sustained series of attacks against Iraq. We are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of the region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government - a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and will work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm’s way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq’s military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past Saddam has intentionally placed civilians in harm’s way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war with his own people.

And mark my words. He will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them.

Because we’re acting today it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we’ll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace. Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

* * *

So, did the president lie? Or was he operating on the best intelligence available at the time? Did he deliberately hype the WMD threat to coerce the country into war or was he proactively responding to the very best intelligence from the CIA and from information gathered by the U.N. weapons inspectors?

The political opponents of the president argue it was all a lie. They argue the above words were a cynical con from a president bent on overthrowing a foreign power and willing to invent a phony basis for doing it.

* * *

By the way, the above speech was delivered Dec. 16, 1998. The president was Bill Clinton.

[quacker backer]

yes

[Variable]

Did he lie? No.

Embellish, for the point of effect? Sure.

Rely on biased sources for critical information? Yep.

Make premature conclusions from inconclusive data? Uh huh.

What I think really strengthened the "Bush lied, soldiers died" bumpersticker crowd was his administration's stand-offishness, inability to admit mistakes and outright arrogance.

In essence, once things began to not go according to plan, when they didn't find WMDs for instance, rather than saying, "Based on the intelligence we had before the invasion, I'm surprised nothing has turned up, but we'll keep looking", he said (effectively), "They're THERE, dammit and we're going to find them." He put all of his eggs in one basket and then tooled the pooch(a fuckup of that magnitude is worth two metaphors). Sure, it's still entirely possible that they were shipped off to Syria or buried in the desert, but you can't base your case for going to war on WMDs and then come up empty and expect to maintain popular support, especially while having a defiant, arrogant attitude about the whole thing.

Same thing goes for the pursuit of Bin Laden... By the way they phrased things ("Wanted dead or alive"), and by their constant use of phrases like "We'll get him, it's just a matter of time", they put the expectation in the public's mind that Bin Laden absolutely would be captured. When years later they still only have a rough idea where he's at, they look like idiots.

So no, I don't think Bush lied to the American people to get us to support a war based on falsehoods, but I think he and his administration have made a series of blunders that have made it appear that way to many people. And what's truly amazing to me is that in this day and age of politics, that a group of people with decades of political experience could be that clueless regarding public relations and getting and keeping public support.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Sure, it's still entirely possible that they were shipped off to Syria...

You'll never know unless you go looking for them.

FASTER, NEOCONS! KILL! KILL!

[Diogenes]

FASTER, NEOCONS! KILL! KILL!


Works for me.



But I'm a divider, not a uniter.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

[Gunslinger]

FASTER, NEOCONS! KILL! KILL!


Works for me.



But I'm a divider, not a uniter.

Could have saved us the trouble if we had threatened the most powerful country in the Middle East to kick out those that supported Al Qaeda and put bases back in their country and helped them with us and world support to attack Iran and Syria.

Sound like a good plan? FUCK!! Wrong country, I was talking about Saudia Arabia.

But you are a pussy and like picking on the weakest kid. Shit! You even disgrace veteran McCain, because you feel you have balls.

Well the bolding has always been because you lack the balls to do anything. Overcompensation is the word.

[Diogenes]

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

I believe the term is "chutzpah".

[Variable]

Sure, it's still entirely possible that they were shipped off to Syria...

You'll never know unless you go looking for them.

FASTER, NEOCONS! KILL! KILL!

Seriously, I would have much rather that we had attacked Syria, as I believe they're a much bigger problem than Iraq was. I'm sure they went after Iraq because they felt it would be easier to get a stable government in place though.

Seriously, Marty, whether you agree with going on the offensive in a war against muslim extremists or not, it doesn't really matter. This war will go on for decades, across several continents and eventually will end up in Canada as well. If you think a Canadian strategy of sitting by passively and waiting for civilian targets to be attacked is a wise strategy, more power to you...I guess.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

This war will go on for decades,

You fucking got that right.


....across several continents and eventually will end up in Canada as well. If you think a Canadian strategy of sitting by passively and waiting for civilian targets to be attacked is a wise strategy, more power to you...I guess.

It's your war. You broke it, you pay for it.
You believing that that rest of the sane world is gullible enough to fall for the same old con game is just you projecting your frustration.
You can't come to grips that Americans really are that stupid.
It's your war, sucker.

[MSUFAN]

Hey Fraudo-Bigass.

Did Clintons speech lead to the direct killing of now over 2,000+ American soldiers?

Nice KYOA! Jackass.

And yes. Bush lied.

Immensely and profusely.

[Tom In VA]

Hey Fraudo-Bigass.

Did Clintons speech lead to the direct killing of now over 2,000+ American soldiers?

Actually, yes it did.

[BSmack]

Hey Fraudo-Bigass.

Did Clintons speech lead to the direct killing of now over 2,000+ American soldiers?

Actually, yes it did.

If you are refering to the speech he gave recognizing Bush as President, then you are correct.

[Tom In VA]

Hey Fraudo-Bigass.

Did Clintons speech lead to the direct killing of now over 2,000+ American soldiers?

Actually, yes it did.

If you are refering to the speech he gave recognizing Bush as President, then you are correct.

Actually what's correct is that his speech revealed the United States policy of using military means to thwart Saddam getting WMD and eventually the notion of "regime change" in Iraq was introduced by Clinton's Administration. From Bill right on down to the DNC's candidate in 2004 John Kerry.