The Bush admin is still lying to start a war - Page 14  

Bush and Blair stated that WMD is why the war was waged. Period. (well...there was regime change, the lies about Saddam and al qaida, etc, but those were secondary).

Now that no WMD have been found, the best form of damage control is to rely on that old chestnut of "humanitarianism" and sell it tooth and nail. This line of argument is emotional blackmail of the sickest variety. Bush will only have an interest in the Iraqi people (or people anywhere in the world for that matter) when they become "consumers" or a docile work force.

George Bush gives a damn about human rights!!!!



Where's that 200 kilo cluestick...

Wrong. This wasn´t just presented to the american people (who gave shit anyway. It all more or less came down to "Hey we are stilln agry over 911. Lets kick some ass"). It was also given as reason at the SC (like that matters for you) AND those giving the prez the go ahead for a war of aggression.

Accountability is what count when it comes to leaders



If he really meant it GWB had the opportunity to say "you may not agree with me but I find the humanitarian situation in Iraq so bad I want to engage in war over it" instead of making up WoMDs, strange far out links to al Quada.

BRussell:


Repeatedly lying about what I say (and then trying to cover up the first lie with more lies) is more insulting than any name I could call you.

Quit while you're behind.

--

Anders:


Well Bush provided myriad reasons. He and Blair both discussed ad nauseum the humanitarian crisis in Iraq but it was then (as it is now) brushed off as if it didn't exist. As you can see from giant's "but people are suffering in other places, too" logic of denying the humanitarian case.

I provide links but you guys act like you don't see them.

Again: Bush and Blair made the humanitarian case for war. It was done. The humanitarian case against Hussein and sanctions was made by many human rights groups for a decade before GeeDub even took office.

- Was it Bush's main goal or motivating factor? I don't give a rat's ass what George W Bush thought was most important. It would be physically impossible for me to care less. I can think for myself, thank you very much.
- Was it Bush's main method of selling it? Certainly not.
- Was it there? Undeniably.

And if the case (that you damn well knew existed) is not compelling enough for you then that's your own problem. That's what I'm saying.

---

giant:


Glad to see you've run out of arguments and have dropped the pretense that you are actually able to debate content with me.

No face-saving here, love, I've been making the same argument for damn near 8 months.

What places do I "ignore"?
How many threads have you started about African strife (less than me, most likely) and how often do you bring it up?

Just stop posting in the thread, you're embarrassing yourself.

By groverat,

" Again: Bush and Blair made the humanitarian case for war. It was done. The humanitarian case against Hussein and sanctions was made by many human rights groups for a decade before GeeDub even took office.

- Was it Bush's main goal or motivating factor? I don't give a rat's ass what George W Bush thought was most important. It would be physically impossible for me to care less. I can think for myself, thank you very much.
- Was it Bush's main method of selling it? Certainly not.
- Was it there? Undeniably. "

This is just more smoke and mirrors. Geez! The main thrust of their argument was ( the only thing that would justify this war as their are many places with bad humanitarian conditions in the world ) Saddam was a threat. He has WOMD. That's what this thread is about. That was the only thing that would have gotten Bush and Blair past go! Dancing around this won't make you anymore credable. Geez! You're almost as bad as SDW! I always knew you and I would never see eye to eye on most world politics but I never figured you were just full of BS when it came down to proof of your case.

There was great human suffering in Iraq due to saddam. As there is in the world still. That's not what we're talking about in this thread. It's also not the reason Bush was able to go to war without a lot more difficulty.

Since when are we just supposed to discuss the very specific topic and never stray?

Bush lied, it's been established. Anyone who thinks Bush was 100% honest is a lunatic. It's been established.

We are discussing other things now, if you're uncomfortable with that you are free to not click the link and read.


If you don't want to acknowledge the humanitarian issue that's your thing.

No one is forcing you to read or post about it. I don't think you have any moral or logical right or imperative to instruct me to not discuss the humanitarian issue.

Also, if we're going to discuss Bush lying we must discuss what he said. And he most certainly has mentioned the humanitarian case dozens of times.

So should we only discuss that which you're prepared to or think you have compelling arguments for and ignore everything you can't refute to fit your partisan positions that require no independent thought?

Oh my god I think I just got a hernia.

I'm actually pretty interested to see what happens with the various inquiries (in the US and the UK) into whether or not he (and Blair) misled Congress (and Parliament) into supporting the use of force in Iraq.

Cheers
Scott

Yeah and this is coming from the " Evil Moderator "

My problem isn't that you agree that Bush lied. My problem is that you seem to find it acceptable. Not a small lie ether. It resulted in the death of many people. Now I know you're going to say it resulted in saving many people but that's not the point. An american president is supposed to have better values than to lie just to get his way ( yes I'm including Clinton in this as well ). Especially when it results in the death of many ( something that Clinton's lie didn't ).

Plus I strongly suspect getting his way didn't have anything to do with humanitarian issues.

midwinter:


I'm not saying it was all lies, but I am definitely saying he wasn't 100% forthright in representing the threat Iraq posed and definitely let his listener's mind wander on to inflate greater importance of that threat; Hence: people believing Saddam had something to do with 9/11?

Did he say Saddam was behind 9/11? Of course not.
Did he present the cases in such a way that it could be picked up by an ignorant third party? Perhaps.

But to decry this truth-twisting as anything unique or exceedingly noteworthy is just foolish and wholly ignorant of recent presidential history re: Iraq. And that is why the outcry about "new precedents" being set makes me laugh. It's laughable.

-

jimmac:


Impossible fantasy is more important than life on the ground, eh?

If the senate wants to investigate go ahead but until Dubya commits an impeachable offense I don't give a shit. You hate him because you're a partisan tool, plain and simple. I'm not motivated by that like you are.


Excuse me, jimmac, EXCUSE ME?
Clinton lies didn't cost lives?

Ever heard of Desert Fox, my friend? EVER?

"This 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."

Which president said this before dropping a metric assload of bombs on Iraq?

Or were Clinton's bombs made of rainbows and fairy tales?

And this is what I mean when I accuse you of having no real motivation or thought aside from partisan bullshit.

So now we have established that you think Bush lied. Now do you defend his right to lie to the congress (about WoMDs, the Nigerian link and other stuff) in other to reach a greater good?

Anders:


1) Did he lie to Congress? proof?

2) Did he lie under oath? (was this sworn testimony?)

If answer to 2 is "no". 3) Did he provide any information that members of Congress couldn't independently verify or research?

If answer to 3 is "yes". 4) Was this information a deciding factor in any of their decisions?

These are basic fundamental questions if anyone is interested in bringing some substance to the discussion.

-

I think presidents should be honest, but I see the world as full of grey and for different causes I think lying or truth-bending is absolutely acceptable. For other causes it was not.

Bush played the exact same WMD card that had been played by his internationally-popular predecessor for 8 years. The difference? Bush has an "R" next to his name.

That's what this is about, the "R". And I've met very few people who will be honest about that.

Uh, yeah, that's the only difference between Bush's and Clinton's Iraq policies.

Man you are a tool. "Did he lie under oath?" You sound like you're his lawyer trying to get him off on technicalities, rather than making objective judgments. Of course he wasn't under oath.

You also claimed in one of your defenses of Bush that terrorism wasn't really one of his reasons for the war.

Isn't that precisely what the Senate is going to look into? The Brits are already on it.


No, but if he deliberately misrepresented the level of threat to Congress ( to get them to grant approval for the war), to the UN (via Powell), and to the American people (via his national press conference), I would say that that's a very, very bad thing.


Wasn't there a problem with members of congress requesting intelligence data and not getting it?


Difficult to say, since I'm not a member of Congress.


Clinton wages a full-scale war, with hundreds of thousands of troops, and I didn't notice? The difference is not the R or the D. The difference is that Clinton wanted to contain SH (and occasionally drop some bombs on him to keep him in check); Bush wanted to remove him from power.[/QUOTE]

As a side note, Groverat, while I'm with you that the B and B attempted to make a humanitarian case for SH's removal, do you not think it's strange that the probes (in the US, led by a Republican from VA) are investigating the hyping of claims of WMD? Why would neither admin be making the argument you've been advancing if, in fact, the humanitarian issue had been such a large part of their case? Seriously.

Cheers
Scott

Never mind.

BRussell:


Yet more lies about what I say hidden in sarcasm.

Did Bush and Clinton not both play the WMD card? Because that's all I said.


It's an important distinction. If someone is trying to sell you something in a speech you assume they are likely to lie or exaggerate. If someone is saying something under oath they are obligated to tell the "whole truth and nothing but the truth". Huge difference.

Question for you:
I think Clinton deserved impeachment for lying under oath. Do you think I would feel the same if he only lied on television?


Quote me. Shouldn't be too hard.

--

midwinter:


It's bad form to answer a question with a question.

We shall see what they come up with.


I think Congress and the UN were well aware of everything Bush/Powell talked about and were able to make decisions on their own without him (and they did, as many were quite angry with him.) It is not as if he wasn't being called a liar before he even opened his mouth. It's not like these weren't questions before.

Re: Congress' abrogation of their Constitutional duties by handing the Executive supreme war powers. That is a travesty on a Constitutional basis alone, I don't think members of Congress are so stupid to belive everything the President says.

As far as the American people, I don't know how much he's lied to them. I haven't really seen the case made. Maybe, maybe not.


I don't know if it was a problem so much as them not being authorized, which is perfectly valid IMO. Congress is more full of leaks than the Titanic.

If they weren't sure they shouldn't have given him so much power, that is their own fault those goddam bastards.


And that difference is a bad thing!? haha


What do you mean "be making the argument"? They already made the argument, you agree to that.

They called it a war of liberation for Dog's sake.

Do you want them to make it on your front porch? How many times does it have to he rehashed to be known?

When was the last time Bush said something about WMD? Yet how often is it brought up even today?

This is very much about what Bush's partisan political opponents want the issue to be about, and since WMD is all they've got to attack with that's what they go with. It becomes a media event.

hushed golf-voice re-cap:
*giant, out of arguments and logic resorts to flexing his charity muscles in a character attack, let's see how it goes*


I don't know what you consider "humanitarian work" but I do habitat for humanity every so often and back in my church-going days (a good 5 years ago) I was very active in such things. Oklahoma tornado disaster cleanup, Mississippi flooding and all that good fun.

Not much in the last few years aside from the Habitat for Humanity, though, and I really have a difficult time seeing what the hell it has to do with anything.


I think humanitarian workers are political creatures, by and large, especially ones who use the work of others they know as weapons on internet message boards.

Tell me, giant, what have the humanitarian repercussions of the war been and how do they compare to the pre-war methods of "containing" Hussein?

giant:


The point of Iraq's humanitarian situation is not Iraq's humanitarian situation?


Afghanistan is still there. We still have troops there. Russia just backed a NATO peacekeeping plan there with 5,000 troops in Kabul. Karzai is visiting Iran. What the hell does your ignorance on the subject have to do with anything?

Bush pledged a shitload of money for AIDS in Africa and dozens of groups are still working on it.

What is your point?

Bush played the card in order to invade Iraq. That's the reason people are critical his playing of the WMD card. But you knew that, you were just trying to defend Bush in any way possible.


It's a pathetically transparent attempt to defend Bush. Question for you: how often do presidents go under oath? If that's your standard, Nixon wouldn't have been up for impeachment.
I'm claiming that you said terrorism wasn't really one of the reasons Bush used to go to war. By saying "quote me," you're not admitting you said it. Do you deny you it then?

BRussell:


No, I'm being consistent.
I didn't really care all that much when Clinton lied about his blowjob and I don't really care all that much that Bush lied to invade Iraq.

Clinton lying to bomb Iraq is worse than Bush's lie to invade because Clinton didn't actually get anything accomplished with the lie. Bush got rid of Saddam and sanctions, two HUGE positives in my mind.


It's not my fault you are the one obsessed with that angle.


Don't know and what does that matter?


Nixon was involved in an actual crime; B&E etc...
Lying is not a crime.


I'm asking you to provide context with a quote.
Lay the hammer down on me, BRussell, smack me up.

----

giant:

Again, what is your point about Afghanistan, AIDS in Africa? What's your point?


Remove a president? When did I say we should remove a president for a technicality? Or do you not know what impeachment is?

How would I be using an argument now to "save face" when I've been using it for ~8 months? Learn a lesson from Anders, a little research he did trying to catch me in a lie revealed that I've been saying the exact same thing for months. Ain't that right, Anders?

You can attempt to wriggle out of this one by making an obivious and feable attempt to portray me as uncaring or a tool for the democratic party. I'm registered independent by the way.

With the Clinton thing we'll never know the statis of WOMD in Iraq at the time. That was years ago. I still don't think that Iraq was ever any kind of real threat but I never said Clinton was perfect.

The lie I was talking about was with the sex scandal.

Bush lied about his facts to create a war that cost lives and lots of money in a time of economic strife. Nothing you say will change that.

I accuse you of having a blind spot when it comes to the truth. There were a lot of people who didn't want us to go to war. Our president assured us there was a good reason to do so ( WOMD and that he was some kind of threat to us the humanitarian aspect was a sub plot ). What's the matter groverat? Don't you care about those people who died in a war that was started under false pretenses? Or under your definition was it wrong under Clinton but ok under Bush? People died ether way.

My main problem with this isn't that the people of Iraq are free of one regime only to find themselves ( and their oil ) being governed by the west ( I know you'll say we're going to leave but prevously you said we wouldn't stay at all ). My problem is that this was all started under false pretense. Bush stonewalled this one through and should be held accountable.

I've endured your sexist and immature little boy insults over this but I do believe we have you by the short hairs this time.

jimmac:


What would they have in 1998/9 that they didn't have in 2002/3? And that timespan was void of UN inspectors.

I think it's hilarious you allow ambiguity for Clinton "we'll never know" and absolve him to an extent "I never said Clinton was perfect."

At least I have the consistency to say they both lied to get something done.


And since I don't disagree with any of that (never have) I don't want to "change" it.


Yes.


Were you assured?
Assurance is a two-way street.

Bush said those things, whether or not someone was assured was a personal decision. And as you say there were a lot of people who didn't want us to go to war.

And main plot or sub-plot it is your duty as a thinking being and participant in a democracy to analyze the situation in your own mind and not through what partisan bias you have.


Sure, the exact same amount I care about the people who died by "peaceful" means of "containment". All 1.2 million of them.


The UN's way, Clinton's way and Bush's daddy's way took 1.2 million Iraqi civilian lives.
Dubya's way took 6,000.

1.2 million lives to "contain" a brutal dictator is wrong, absolutely.
6,000 lives to remove the brutal dictator and the mass-murdering apparatus of containment is unfortunate but right, absolutely.

Has little to do with who does it. If Clinton had waged war to oust Hussein I would be saying the exact same things.


1) Are you attempting to draw a moral equivalency between Hussein and the US's occupation so far?

2) Don't say I said something, quote me. I don't like it when so many people lie about what I say all at once.


Your main concern re:war isn't the Iraqi people but international and domestic partisan politicking. I knew that already, you didn't have to tell me.


He is being crucified (and has been crucified) in the court of public opinion for months. What more do you want?

What are you holding your breath for, young man?

--

giant:

1) I'm glad you learned a lesson about US government today.

2) Was war not the only way to disarm Iraq?

The problem of WOMD not found belongs to internal US politics. One thing is sure, The Bush team is certainly praying for a discovery of WOMD in Iraq. The fact that no WOMD have been found in Iraq is a proof of honnesty or at least of intelligence.

I just wanted to come back on the so called failure of UN. Some months ago in this thread many people said that UN was a failure, because she did not folllow the US in his foreign politic.
The argument for war (and here we do not speak of internal politic, it's not just a question of moving the public opinions for a good reason) was not trusted by the majority of diplomats and theirrespective governements of the countries of the security council.

Time will demonstrate if the war in Iraq have brings some good, but except a WOMD scoop, it appears that the argument for war bringed to the UN wasn't very good. It was logical that the UN did not voted the resolution for war presented in this way.
If this war had for goal to remove a bloody tyrannic dictator, the situation may have been different, at least not for the result (because many dictators will have voted against this resolution ...) but in a moral point of vue.

My point is UN is not finish, and can be helpful when the cards are not tricked.

powerdoc:


point-of-fact:
I didn't say and don't think the UN-SC is a failure because it failed to rubber stamp the US. Ideally a reasonable counter to the US's power would be nice.
My opinion that the UN-SC is a failure is based on the idea that it rarely does anything positive and its handling of Iraq prior to the war was beyond reprehensible.


The UN can do great things. The UN-SC can only do something right if it everyone except the person the force is going to attack agrees to move forward. That is why I think the UN-SC is a failure, because it is inflexible and self-defeating.

NATO, on the other hand, has a great track record and is looking poised to move to larger arenas. I'm not against international security, I'm against ineffectual bodies like the UN-SC.

---

giant:


Howso?

---

I wonder where those planted WMD that were so heavily predicted before the war are... hmmm.

1) The first point was not written especially for you. To be frank i don't remember exactly who write what. This thread is particulary long, and i miss it for three weeks, like the rest of AI for personal reasons.

2) I don't understand what you meant with UN SC, in particular this sentance : everyone except the person the force is going to attack agrees to move forward. Can you reword it in a more simple way for a non native english speaker

3) the crisis is over, dispite the conflictuals situations, all countries needs each others especially in the occidental side. Many foreign offices wanted to speak of the future and not of the process of the second war in Irak.

powerdoc:


Ok.
*hugs*


United Nations - Security Council

When you say "UN" I take that to mean the entire organization, which has many great humanitarian subsets that I respect a great deal. So I make the distinction: UN-SC.


Yeah it was a bad sentence even for native English speakers.

I am saying that the only time the UN-SC can do something right is when everyone agrees (except the person who will be attacked by the UN forces, of course). And even then the UN-SC has a very spotty track record.

Wolfowitz is out of control.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...970334,00.html


I'm sure it's out of context to some extent. But can a member of this administration utter the words 'oil' and 'Iraq' in the same sentence without being fired?

Thanks for the clarification. I see your point. I think the real goal of the security council is to avoid a new world war. Considering that the word has changed since 1945, an evolution of this system should be made.

I'm not holding my breath " young man " . I wasn't making comment about your age as much as your demeanor. This has nothing to do with partisan politics. It's about right and wrong. He's being crucified? Good.

Any occupation is a ruling body. But you claim we set them free. The part you say the end justified the means doesn't wash. It was under false pretense. Don't you get it? And guess what? There are still many dictators in the world. Bush picked this one for other reasons ( not the ones you have listed ). Listen if Clinton had done this I would be saying the exact same things. But you know that's not the way reality went.

And groverat please smugness won't help you now.

Is there any chance that this quote is BS?

Since Thegelding flee out AO, i fear that i am one of the only old things around here.

Out of control? Out of context? The "Prince of Darkness" is one of the authors of US foreign policy. He knows exactly what he can say, and how far he can tread. He's not going to get fired because of some off the cuff comment made in the far east. The American people have already been told it was about WMD...over and over..so thats what the war was about. 41% of Americans believe that the WMD have already been found...such is the state of public (un)awareness. Who reads the Guardian over here anyway? If Iraq had no oil, you tell me what kind of invasion would have taken place?

Out of context???? sheeeesh...sounds like the kind of watered down spineless appeasement the current crop of "democrats" are serving up. Gimme a break!




Anyone recall those "No Blood For OIL" banners??????? 80%+ of the worlds population (5 billion) cant be wrong. Any antiwar activist worth their salt who had done some reading up on the subject would have told you precisely what the war was to be about before the Bush crew publicly started propagandizing about it.