Conyers' Report out

First, apologies for the "snappish" reply. Even if it was in response to a snappish comment of your own.

As for the validity of Conyers' report, I am judging it somewhat in light of his earlier reports, which were totally partisan. Example: His previous report alleging massive voter fraud in Ohio, when in fact the precincts in question were administered by African-American Democrats.

Going to war under false pretenses? Most of the Dems who are making that charge now were themselves raising the alarm over Saddam and his danger to the region prior to the invasion.

 

I supported the war myself. We were told that massive WMD poised a danger to us, and that the war would be over quickly at little expense.

So it seemed worth it. Then we learned that none of it was true, that the WMD were mostly fantasy, and the rest rusting shells that were no longer usable. We learned that there was no plan to get out, except "They will all love us and build a western-style democracy."

And we learned that Bush's compaign contributors were allowed to use it as a massive cash cow at taxpayer expense.

Yeah, a lot of democrats changed their minds. And so have a lot of libertarians. If you'll check the polls you'll see that a lot of republicans have, too.

 

Well, I was not in favor of the Iraq invasion, but now that we are there we have to be successful.

Bush did not say that the war would be over quickly and at little expense:

"This will be a long campaign," he told the senior officers in the room, "and the people in uniform are very important to it." ...."I know that this is a different type of enemy than we're used to,....It's an enemy that likes to hide and burrow in, and their network is extensive. There are no rules. It's barbaric behavior. They slit throats of women on airplanes in order to achieve an objective. That is beyond comprehension."
-TIME MAGAZINE, Sep 2001



"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb 17 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep Nancy Pelosi, Dec 16, 1998.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen Carl Levin, Sep 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sep 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen Ted Kennedy, Sep 27, 2002.

 

That was what I thought, after it became clear that Bush had lied to us about it, and how it was going to work out. Now, I'm not so sure it's not going to turn out to be another Vietnam.

Not after he started it. But before...

In the months preceding the war, President Bush was largely silent on the subject of the conflict's cost, duration and dangers, while key administration officials and advisers presented upbeat forecasts. Vice President Cheney, for example, predicted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's troops would "step aside" and that the conflict would be "weeks rather than months," a phrase repeated by other top officials. Others in advisory roles in the administration predicted Iraqi soldiers would "throw in the towel" and Hussein would collapse like "a house of cards" -- phrases senior administration officials often echoed in private...A senior administration official who briefed reporters Monday on condition of anonymity said Rumsfeld "has right along said that he thought that fighting was likely to last weeks, not months." Rumsfeld told troops last month that "it could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." Rumsfeld also contradicted the Army chief of staff, who told the Senate that "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed to occupy Iraq. "Far off the mark," Rumsfeld said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44801-2003Mar28?language=printer

And a reference back to the time when Saddam actually had WMD...
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb 17 1998.

What counts is what there was at the time. And Bush had evidence from intelligence sources that indicated there were no usable WMD, that they had been destroyed (we now know that most were) or were unusable. (as the rest were). And he chose to hide that from us.

The administration was crowing that the fighting would last weeks, not months. They bragged that the Iraqis would love us and greet us as liberators. Rumsfeld even publicly ridiculed his own generals who warned the fool that it would be harder than Bush & Co. were claiming.

And now, the suffering and time, greater by at least tenfold, continues to drain our treasury and our best troops, and is alienating our friends in the world.

 

Oh I see. When The Clintons were in office, the intelligence on Iraq was foolproof. Bulletproof. But not after Bush was elected.

That's some pretty fancy footwork.

Then why was Teddy saying in Sep 2002, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." .

 

So you know the mind and heart of Bush? I believe Bush is a fellow Christian yet we resort to calling him a liar even though there has been no good proof given to support that. Are you sure Jesus would be in support of you saying things such as these?

 

There's nothing new here. This is but more attempts to spin the facts a particular way. There is little evidence that supports anything in summary that Daisy posted. Those are conclusions, drawn by a biased committee with a political agenda.

The truth remains what it always has been, that the evidence was conflicting and Bush, along with many Democrats interpreted it all the same. Later, when it appears (still not conclusive) that the evidence was incorrect, some turned against Bush for political gain in a shameless display of complete lack of integrity.

To continue to propound the idea that Bush lied is simply intellectually dishonest. There is no evidence that such is the case. A disagreement on the implications of evidence does not constitute a lie.

This is all such old news I am not sure why it is being brought up.

 

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 11:00 p.m. ET by one of the moderators.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator

 

I know that when someone tells me something he knows isn't true, that he's lying to me. Bush said he knew there were WMD, when he had intelligence reports saying there was no evidence for it. He chose to hide those from us.

That kind of behavior does have consequences. A couple of years ago, most Americans were willing to give him the benefit of a doubt on his truthfullness. No longer.

Jesus was pretty blunt about that kind of behavior. He was less gentle than I was about the sort of things Bush does.

 

The truth is there were conflicting intelligence reports, as is often the case. The man in charge(the President) weighs the pros and cons and makes a decision.

For you to say there was no evidence for WMDs is to ignore the massive amount of intelligence that suggested the opposite.

It appears you believe only what conforms to your preconceived notion of how it was or how you want it.

 

Now, some two years later you are still beating this dead horse, and are still wrong. Yes, Bush was told there were not WMDs. He was also told that there was, and numerous people from all sides agreed with the assessment that there was.

We still do not know for sure that there wasn't. Hussein stonewalled the inspection team for years, kicked them out. He did not comply with the UN stipulations for the 1991 cease fire. Iraqi soldiers regularly shot at American plans patrolling the no-fly zone, and the intelligence said he had them.

It is remarkable that after this long you are still trying to argue for your position. It is patently absurd to pretend that you "know that Bush knew there were no WMDs."

 

Barbarian observes:
...And a reference back to the time when Saddam actually had WMD....What counts is what there was at the time.

I don't remember that being said. In fact, Clinton knew there were WMD, because he had evidence for Saddam destroying many of them. Bush argued that Saddam could launch the weapons against the US in 45 minutes, a complete fantasy.

In fact, he had been doing so for many years. I'm not sure if Teddy was given the intelligence report from the DIA that said there was no evidence for any being left, but I suspect Bush kept that one to himself.