If no WMD found; will Bush be made out to be a liar?

[Ned]

SAVA, If the intelligence that the pres based his info on was falsified, but the president did not know it, then the president is not a liar. If, however, the intelligence was "best guess" and the president painted a picture that the "guess" was fact, then, yes, he could be labelled a liar.

"I did not have sex with that woman."

Then we can truly say, that Bush is jusl like other presidents, can we not?

Remember our little discussion on the Spanish-American war. The pretext for the invasion of Cuba was the Maine. We found out later - eighty years later - that the Maine disaster probably was an accident. But did the pres know this at the time?

Regardless, the real reason for invading Spanish Cuba was its liberation from a brutal regime. That was the real reason for the invasion of Iraq as well.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Vandal-1
Yeah they did nt have any atom bombs ,delivery systems i.e.guidance or launch facilities.Just judging by the size of a missle I find it hard to believe that such a thing could be concealed even in a place the size of California.The infastructure involved in a missle program is expensive,massive in size,and involves a large parts inventory(there would be records of machine parts purchased in bills of lading from some exporter)

It's not like anyone said they had Nuclear ICBM's...

WOMD's include dirty bombs, nerve gas, anthrax etc. you know.

Still, even if nothing is found, 22 million people got their freedom, so I'd say Pres. Bush made the right call, eh.

[Vandal-1]

Yes -they were set free from a dictator installed by a previouse US president namely Reagan.I am not concluding that this war has affected no good unless there is another dictatorship installed in which case it was purely for profit.The damage is to the credibilty of our command so far.I hope that the Kurds will as a result have some peace.I know that a 120mm shell can be armed to deliver a 1mgtn device therefore such a device cannot be excluded logicly,I believe they were/are made out of a Cobalt Isotope AW 262.This is a refined nuclear waste from a reactor put through a accellerater and both would be visible from spacial or airiel survielence,even underground their would be dust from such a operation and the dust would emitt radiatiion.
The Iraqi's would therefore have to puchase such material.I the biological issue is the one that has the most validity but such weapons development place the developer at risk 1st .I ll question my sister who is a doctor about this and get back to you.I only understand machines.

[Kropotkin]

ehh, what? Saddam Hussein got to power back in the days when Reagan was still a lousy cowboy-actor.

[Winston]

Vandal,

Sorry, it's rather ridiculous to suggest that Saddam was installed by the US. He rose to power in the early 70's BTW.

Krops,

Yes, when faced with greatness you're unable to fathom, revert to derogatory stereotypes.

[faded glory]

Yes,

but will it hurt his credibility/popularity? Unlikely. Other things found point the finger at connections with Terrorism.

Im pretty sure we will still find WoMD. After all, only 2 weeks before the war the iraqi's "Claimed" to have re-discovered some mustard gas warheads. UNSCOM destroyed them, but still.

[faded glory]

Im growing sick and tired of these weenie lefist allegations we installed Saddam and the Taliban into power

Either this is Ignorance or Revisionism. Either way its kind of sad.

[Vandal-1]

1)I stand corrected on the assertion that the US "installed "Saddam more accurately we just armed him against the Iranians during the 1st Reagan term.
2)And now that you mention it Faded {since I didn't }the Mujahadeen freedom fighters were also armed by the US or did you forget about Oliver North another right wing criminal (see Iran -Contra scandal)
3)The guns are what made these regimes powerful other larger populations apposed them like the Kurds but they did nt have the weapons to gain controle of the Narcotics trade or the Oil trade hence not the money to buy off the local authorities or purchase more GUNS so lets just say we helped alot
4)I wonder who gave them the damned gas lets suppose it was the Ruskies anyway we knew they had that since like 78 cause they used it to repel Iranian human wave attacks.I find denial both Ignorant and distressing myself. I will yeild that I am a wienie left wing ignoramouse however

[Edan]

(I haven't read the entire thread yet, so I may be repeating something..)
If there were no WMDs to discover - not just that they were destroyed or hidden or moved in the days before the war, but that that they were destroyed a long time ago - Iraq could have and should have shown evidence of it to the inspectors a long time ago. Their noncompliance (with something they agreed to and should have done twelve years ago, but never did) was the casus beli for war. If they had destroyed the weapons, it was enormously stupid not to show that to the UN. And while people might say that you can't prove a negative, South Africa disarmed to the UN's satisfaction - Iraq did not, and fought tooth and nail to give as little compliance as possible while continuing to work on new weapons in the decade following the gulf war. As a beaurocratic state, they would have evidence of the destruction of WMDs, and there is no logical reason that a country that was trying it's best to keep as many WMDs as it could would destroy them in secret without collecting evidence instead of destroying them with the inspectors as witnesses - unless they did so in the days just before the war.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Vandal-1
1)I stand corrected on the assertion that the US "installed "Saddam more accurately we just armed him against the Iranians during the 1st Reagan term.

Yes, we did, but a lot less then some other countries...

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, between 1973 and 2002 Russia supplied 57 percent of Iraq's arms, France 13 percent, China 12 percent, Brazil 2 percent . . . Brazil? Hang on, where's Washington? Where's London? Well, it turns out Brazil supplied more arms to Iraq than America and Britain combined. London and Washington between them account for less than 2 percent of the Iraqi dictatorship's weapons; the parties that met on Friday account for three-quarters.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn13.html

[Ned]

Sava, I am sure you have seen the MSNBC video of a mobile bio lab. MSNBC is reporting that that is what it is.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ned
If the intelligence that the pres based his info on was falsified, but the president did not know it, then the president is not a liar.

Good angle, I haven't really heard this possibility before. Now the question is, just what force is it within the CIA and the mil-ind. complex that would have lied to him, and what were their motives?

[Edan]

Originally posted by Darius871


Good angle, I haven't really heard this possibility before. Now the question is, just what force is it within the CIA and the mil-ind. complex that would have lied to him, and what were their motives?

Why do we have to assume that it was a "force"? Not everything has to be a conspiracy. (Assuming that there was intelligence that was false) They could have had:

- Innacurate intelligence
- An individual falsifying information within these agencies.
- Individuals with motives (like Iraqi defectors or other Iraqis who left Iraq and supported the war, or indeed, individuals in Iraq who had contact with the CIA) falsifying information.
- Falsified intelligence from other agencies. (IIRC, wasn't there a forged document that came from another countrie's intelligence service? Though, before the accusations start flying, it wasn't from Britain, Israel or Kuwait).

[Master Zen]

Regardless, the real reason for invading Spanish Cuba was its liberation from a brutal regime. That was the real reason for the invasion of Iraq as well.

... and the installment of some equally brutal ones. Can you spell B-A-T-I-S-T-A?

[Darius871]

Um, Batista wasn't 'installed', he rose to power in Cuba decades after the war. Can you spell D-E-C-A-D-E-S?

Sure we supported Batista, so you're half right, but after the war (well, after the three military occupations to quell dissent in the decade after it) the Cuban government was relatively decent.