NCAAbbs

Truth was the first US casualty in Iraq war: study

Quote:...

The US president was found to have made the most false statements referring a total of 260 times to Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction and Al-Qaeda's alleged links to the Baghdad regime.

But then-secretary of state Powell only just lagged behind with 254 false communications, said the study by the center's founder Charles Lewis and researchers.

Vice President Dick Cheney, former national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, then defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and ex-deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz were also fingered in the study, along with former White House press secretaries Ari Fleisher and Scott McClellan.

Cheney, for example, on August 26, 2002, in an address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention, asserted: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

"There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Former CIA chief George Tenet later noted Cheney's assertions exceeded his agency's assessments at the time, the report said.

In late September 2002, Bush insisted in a radio address that the Baghdad regime posed a global threat.

"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given," Bush said.

"This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year."

after I read that, I can safely say 935...NOT

come on, where do you people think (you do think?) most of those assessments were initially generated ?

hint:
not the 1st W admin.
need to go back to school.
learn US gov't/civics, UN and world gov't. orgs.

I don't care for the man (W). wasn't my 1st choice for repub. candidate. not conservative enough. too much of a puss, wuss... you know what I mean. But imo he did the best thing for US with the info. at hand.

oldblazer79 Wrote:come on, where do you people think (you do think?) most of those assessments were initially generated ?

Certainly not the liberal-commie-pinko UN inspectors who could have settled much of this with due diligence. Nor the documented warhawks (including W himself) who wanted to go into Iraq before there was even 9/11 attacks to worry about.

Lies are still lies, and the ones in charge acted on them.

The attack and invasion of Afghanistan was the result of 9/11. The invasion of Iraq was predicated on Bush being convinced that it would be another walk-over like in 1991-92 with Iraqi forces lining up to surrender "en masse". The Halliburton group was ready to take over the Iraqi oil fields "to pay the U.S. back" for its "expenses". They figured that would drive a wedge into the OPEC cartel, diminishing their monopoly substantially. The "nucular threat" and WMDs were pretexts for what the administration wanted to do anyway, just like LBJ used the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" to do what his administration wanted to do anyway in the 60s.
The U.S.A. has now invaded two countries (Viet Nam and Iraq) who both lacked any substantial offensive air power, no navy craft larger than gunboats, few modern tactical and no strategic weapons and fought to a draw, at best. Do you think we have learned any lessons from this?

BlazerUnit Wrote:

oldblazer79 Wrote:come on, where do you people think (you do think?) most of those assessments were initially generated ?

Certainly not the liberal-commie-pinko UN inspectors who could have settled much of this with due diligence. Nor the documented warhawks (including W himself) who wanted to go into Iraq before there was even 9/11 attacks to worry about.

Lies are still lies, and the ones in charge acted on them.

and more lies [like most of these] will be written again and again.
our media has a long, distinguished and notorious reputation as history revisionists'.
check your FACTS. your beloved UN (the modern home of socialism)records would be a good place to begin. Most every other country's declassified defense dept. docs. (assessments) would be another. And
gee, where do you find/acquire 'warhawk' documentation?
oh h#2l, I found your black helecopter, in the dark, overhead, better hide good night
btw I hope you people aren't learning this crap in classrooms at UAB

So when the dems were saying the same thing in the late 90s, were they lying too? How about when Clinton made it the official policy of the US to have a regime change in Iraq?

An incorrect statement is not a lie.

An honest error is not a lie. When you suppress opposing information, punish those who point out your error by revealing the sensitive nature of their spouse's job, and otherwise spread misinformation you know to be less than verifiable to support your intention, then you are not in error-you are telling lies.

BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:The U.S.A. has now invaded two countries (Viet Nam and Iraq) who both lacked any substantial offensive air power, no navy craft larger than gunboats, few modern tactical and no strategic weapons and fought to a draw, at best. Do you think we have learned any lessons from this?

No.

dfarr Wrote:So when the dems were saying the same thing in the late 90s, were they lying too? How about when Clinton made it the official policy of the US to have a regime change in Iraq?

An incorrect statement is not a lie.

Different eras, different information. The intelligence available during the Clinton Administration might have been just as bad, but he wasn't mandating troop deployment to get the job done. UN weapons inspections could have ended all doubt. But that would've dented W's war plans...can't have that.

BlazerUnit Wrote:

dfarr Wrote:So when the dems were saying the same thing in the late 90s, were they lying too? How about when Clinton made it the official policy of the US to have a regime change in Iraq?

An incorrect statement is not a lie.

Different eras, different information. The intelligence available during the Clinton Administration might have been just as bad, but he wasn't mandating troop deployment to get the job done. UN weapons inspections could have ended all doubt. But that would've dented W's war plans...can't have that.

so that explains the 1998 Klinton admin. policy of regime change in Iraq.
you mean those UN inspectors locked out of the buildings [by the Iraqi gov't.] they were to inspect, and then sent home by Sadaam. long distance inspections were the key

BlazerUnit Wrote:

dfarr Wrote:So when the dems were saying the same thing in the late 90s, were they lying too? How about when Clinton made it the official policy of the US to have a regime change in Iraq?

An incorrect statement is not a lie.

Different eras, different information. The intelligence available during the Clinton Administration might have been just as bad, but he wasn't mandating troop deployment to get the job done. UN weapons inspections could have ended all doubt. But that would've dented W's war plans...can't have that.

That was also before we were bombed by nutty muslims...oh wait, no it wasn't!!