Donald Trump Accuses George W. Bush Of Lying To Invade Iraq

[Cigar]

Donald Trump took former President George W. Bush to task Saturday night, accusing him of lying to get the country into the Iraq War and faulting him for not keeping America safe.

"They lied," Trump said during the CBS News GOP presidential debate. "They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction."

Trump has been outspoken about his dislike of the war in Iraq (though he's fudged the facts about how early he was publicly speaking out against it).

But his comments Saturday night went a step beyond his usual critique. Even Republican skeptics of the war argue that Bush acted with good intentions, so the fact that the Republican frontrunner is the one making the charge is remarkable

"We spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives. ... Obviously, it was a mistake," Trump said. "George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East."



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-george-bush-iraq-invasion_us_56bfe8cbe4b0b40245c6f94b
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-george-bush-iraq-invasion_us_56bfe8cbe4b0b40245c6f94b)


No Republican has ever said anything like this. "They lied" is an extremely powerful sentence. Everyone knows it, but for a Republican presidential candidate to tell the truth, during a debate, as the article points out, is remarkable. Also, it is Trump who is telling the truth.
So, to cover the truth up, all the others will have to lie too. What a show Trump has created. ....... http://www.democraticunderground.com/emoticons/clap.gif

[Private Pickle]

Donald Trump took former President George W. Bush to task Saturday night, accusing him of lying to get the country into the Iraq War and faulting him for not keeping America safe.

"They lied," Trump said during the CBS News GOP presidential debate. "They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction."

Trump has been outspoken about his dislike of the war in Iraq (though he's fudged the facts about how early he was publicly speaking out against it).

But his comments Saturday night went a step beyond his usual critique. Even Republican skeptics of the war argue that Bush acted with good intentions, so the fact that the Republican frontrunner is the one making the charge is remarkable

"We spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives. ... Obviously, it was a mistake," Trump said. "George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East."



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-george-bush-iraq-invasion_us_56bfe8cbe4b0b40245c6f94b
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-george-bush-iraq-invasion_us_56bfe8cbe4b0b40245c6f94b)


No Republican has ever said anything like this. "They lied" is an extremely powerful sentence. Everyone knows it, but for a Republican presidential candidate to tell the truth, during a debate, as the article points out, is remarkable. Also, it is Trump who is telling the truth.
So, to cover the truth up, all the others will have to lie too. What a show Trump has created. ....... http://www.democraticunderground.com/emoticons/clap.gif

Voting for Trump then?

[hanger4]

The 'Bush lied People died' meme was debunked years ago. What Trump believes is irrelevant.

[maineman]

The 'Bush lied People died' meme was debunked years ago. What Trump believes is irrelevant.

The Bush team DID lie when they repeatedly claimed there was absolute certainty regarding Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's.

[Tahuyaman]

Donald Trump Accuses George W. Bush Of Lying To Invade Iraq
Left wingers are going to start liking the dude now.

[Tahuyaman]

The Bush team DID lie when they repeatedly claimed there was absolute certainty regarding Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's.

There was absolute certainty that Iraq possessed chemical weapons and the means to deliver them. This is an undisputed fact.

[birddog]

The Bush team DID lie when they repeatedly claimed there was absolute certainty regarding Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's.

No they did not! Many were moved out in the middle of the night to Syria. Besides, all the UN Resolutions not followed by Hussein were also factors in invading.

That said, I was never in favor of putting large numbers of ground troops in, that could have been handled different.

[hanger4]

The Bush team DID lie when they repeatedly claimed there was absolute certainty regarding Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's.

Yeah I know, Bush duped the US intelligence community and every major intelligence organization in the world not mention the majority of those poor poor pitiful Dem congress critters. LOL

[Mac-7]

Bush was very wrong to invade Iraq and overthrow saddam

But don't think he lied

[Ethereal]

Whether they "lied" or not is debatable, although I tend to believe they did. What's hardly debatable is the utter insanity and foolishness of the Iraq war and the totally dishonest and misleading propaganda that the Bush administration used in order to rationalize it to the public. And just look at the results. The invasion and occupation of Iraq lead directly to the emergence of ISIS as the international terrorist organization that we know today. And then there is the small matter of the many, many thousands of people who were killed and maimed - Iraqis and Americans alike - and the trillion or so tax dollars that was completely wasted on an epic folly. The Bush administration robbed the world of an alternate future where thousands are still living, ISIS never emerged, and trillions of dollars were kept in America. For this, they deserve the eternal detestation of mankind.

[maineman]

Yeah I know, Bush duped the US intelligence community and every major intelligence organization in the world not mention the majority of those poor poor pitiful Dem congress critters. LOL

none of those agencies proclaimed absolute certainty. Team Bush did. You do understand that, don't you?

[PolWatch]

I never supported the invasion of Iraq. That said, what difference does it make that Trump now says Bush lied? Who died and made The Donald the final decider of truth, justice & the American way? The man says anything he thinks will get more publicity and the media eats it up like ice cream. I wonder how much the free publicity has profited Trump & his brand.

[hanger4]

none of those agencies proclaimed absolute certainty. Team Bush did. You do understand that, don't you?
I understand nothing is absolutely certain in the world of intelligence. I also understand The administration statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates at that time.

[Mac-7]

Whether they "lied" or not is debatable, although I tend to believe they did. What's hardly debatable is the utter insanity and foolishness of the Iraq war

How any times a day do you need to say that or hear it said by someone else?

The biggest lie being told today is the one about George bush lying when he didnt

[donttread]

The 'Bush lied People died' meme was debunked years ago. What Trump believes is irrelevant.

Just how was it debunked?

[donttread]

Whether they "lied" or not is debatable, although I tend to believe they did. What's hardly debatable is the utter insanity and foolishness of the Iraq war and the totally dishonest and misleading propaganda that the Bush administration used in order to rationalize it to the public. And just look at the results. The invasion and occupation of Iraq lead directly to the emergence of ISIS as the international terrorist organization that we know today. And then there is the small matter of the many, many thousands of people who were killed and maimed - Iraqis and Americans alike - and the trillion or so tax dollars that was completely wasted on an epic folly. The Bush administration robbed the world of an alternate future where thousands are still living, ISIS never emerged, and trillions of dollars were kept in America. For this, they deserve the eternal detestation of mankind.

Very well put "E".

[Ethereal]

How any times a day do you need to say that or hear it said by someone else?

As many times as it takes.


The biggest lie being told today is the one about George bush lying when he didnt

Whatever you say.

[donttread]

There was absolute certainty that Iraq possessed chemical weapons and the means to deliver them. This is an undisputed fact.

Weren't some of them originally our chemical weapons? Also , while I know chemical weapons technically meet the self serving definition of WMD, they are no more able to inflict large numbers of deaths than is a bombing run , and oh yeah they are much harder to control. They would have to use chemical weapons hundreds of times to equal Hiroshima .

[Cigar]

Marco Rubio says Ted Cruz is a liar -- accusing the Texas senator of false attacks over same-sex marriage, Planned Parenthood, immigration, campaign tactics and more.

"There's no other way to describe that -- it's a lie. When you say something that's not true, it's called a lie. That's the definition of it," Rubio said Sunday in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union."

His verbal assault came the morning after the two had one of the most memorable exchanges of Saturday night's debate hosted by CBS, when Cruz attacked comments Rubio had made on Univision in Spanish about immigration.

Rubio shot back that Cruz doesn't even speak Spanish -- and Cruz responded in Spanish, challenging Rubio to continue their exchange in the language.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/politics/marco-rubio-ted-cruz-lies/index.html

[maineman]

I understand nothing is absolutely certain in the world of intelligence. I also understand The administration statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates at that time.

if absolute certainty did not exist, why are the repeated claims that it did not lies?

[hanger4]

if absolute certainty did not exist, why are the repeated claims that it did not lies?
Then that's on the intelligence community.

[Tahuyaman]

There was absolute certainty that Iraq possessed chemical weapons and the means to deliver them. This is an undisputed fact.


Weren't some of them originally our chemical weapons? Also , while I know chemical weapons technically meet the self serving definition of WMD, they are no more able to inflict large numbers of deaths than is a bombing run....

Where they got them is immaterial. But yes, chemical weapons are in fact Weapons of Mass Destruction. Therefor, the claim that Iraq had no WMD is demonstrably false. In fact, it's knowingly and intentionally false. That means the claim is an outright lie.

[Tahuyaman]

There was absolute certainty that Iraq possessed chemical weapons and the means to deliver them. This is an undisputed fact.


none of those agencies proclaimed absolute certainty. Team Bush did. You do understand that, don't you?


Again, it was an absolute certainty that Iraq possessed chemical weapons and the means to deliver them.

I have no idea why you liberal types keep trying to spin and deny that fact.

[maineman]

Again, it was an absolute certainty that Iraq possessed chemical weapons and the means to deliver them.

I have no idea why you liberal types keep trying to spin and deny that fact.

It was an absolute certainty that he previously had chemical weapons. It was NOT an absolute certainty that he still possessed them.

[maineman]

Then that's on the intelligence community.

the intelligence community never said there was absolute certainty. All of the NIE's contained caveats and qualifiers concerning the less than certain nature of the intelligence concerning those stockpiles. Bush knew that. He had supposedly read the NIEs that were given to him. TO claim absolute certainty when none existed was a lie.

[Tahuyaman]

It was an absolute certainty that he previously had chemical weapons. It was NOT an absolute certainty that he still possessed them.

what, did they disappear?

[Tahuyaman]

Liberals can't break away from the false narrative.

[maineman]

what, did they disappear?

apparently they did. And chemical weapons loaded in artillery shells have a shelf life, sarge. I thought a savvy NCO like you would know that. Artillery shells from 1980's aren't a lot more dangerous twenty years after the fact than the stuff under your kitchen sink... certainly not anything that anyone with any intelligence and/or integrity would classify as a weapon of mass destruction, anyway.

Oh, I forgot.... you would, which sort of proves my point, doesn't it?

[maineman]

and there is no false narrative. Team Bush repeatedly stated that there was absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's when no such absolute certainty existed, even within our own intelligence community. When you say something that is not true, and you know it's not true... that's called a lie.

Trump was right. Bush lied.

[Tahuyaman]

apparently they did. And chemical weapons loaded in artillery shells have a shelf life, sarge. I thought a savvy NCO like you would know that. Artillery shells from 1980's aren't a lot more dangerous twenty years after the fact than the stuff under your kitchen sink... certainly not anything that anyone with any intelligence and/or integrity would classify as a weapon of mass destruction, anyway.

Oh, I forgot.... you would, which sort of proves my point, doesn't it?

just like magic, they were there, then they weren't.

maineman believes his point is proved through magic.

[maineman]

just like magic, they were there, then they weren't.

maineman believes his point is proved through magic.

destroyed by UNSCOM in the early 90's.

Were you on KP when that was going on, sarge?

[Tahuyaman]

destroyed by UNSCOM in the early 90's.

Were you on KP when that was going on, sarge?


you're such a hack. Don't you ever embarrass yourself?

[maineman]

you're such a hack. Don't you ever embarrass yourself?

are you saying that UNSCOM inspectors did NOT destroy Iraqi chemical weapons in the early 90's?

yes or no.

[Tahuyaman]

are you saying that UNSCOM inspectors did NOT destroy Iraqi chemical weapons in the early 90's?

yes or no.

they certainly destroyed some, but not nearly all.

[maineman]

they certainly destroyed some, but not nearly all.

and how do you know that for a fact? Do you have some link that shows what percentage were destroyed, and therefore, what percentage was supposedly NOT destroyed? Please produce it.

[Tahuyaman]

and how do you know that for a fact? Do you have some link that shows what percentage were destroyed, and therefore, what percentage was supposedly NOT destroyed? Please produce it.


Prove they destroyed all.

[Dr. Who]

they certainly destroyed some, but not nearly all.
There was 550 metric tons of yellow cake left in Iraq - it was removed in 2008 out of fears that it would be used for dirty bombs by terrorists. Without the ability to enrich it, there was no ability to turn it into weapons of mass destruction. The means to do that were removed by Bush senior's campaign. Were there other weapons of questionable mass destruction - perhaps. Were they in any way a possible threat to America - no. The only possible threat to America was nuclear weapons. Words like weapons of mass destruction = nuclear devices in most people's minds. Would the possible existence of chemical weapons have persuaded Congress to invade Iraq? I suspect not. But couching it as weapons of mass destruction instilled an almost Cold War fear, keeping in mind that everyone knew that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were seething as a result of the first invasion.

I have no idea what Bush Jr believed at the time - perhaps he sincerely believed what his handler's told him, because Cheney et al were really running the show, with daddy Bush in the background pulling the strings.

George was never really all that political. He was pushed into politics. What degree did he obtain in University - an MBA - his interest was business, not politics. When Daddy Bush lost to Clinton in '92, suddenly George was on a political path. Daddy Bush was determined to reincarnate his political career through his son George. He was already popular in Texas as a former part-owner of the Texas Rangers. He was forced to give it all up for a run for the Governorship, which given the competition, he won. As a Republican governor, he was almost a Democrat, pushing for increased funding for education. He served two terms and then ran for President. He was affable, but not a particularly brilliant guy. However that affability and lack of guile made him seem trustworthy and I expect that he had good intentions, but he was not the master of his Presidency, his father was. Daddy Bush knew exactly what was left in Iraq and used it to make the case for WMD's. Meanwhile, his eye was on the real prize, Iraqi oil, the control of which would have slipped out of American control had Hussein been left to his own devices and thus would have adversely affected Bush family finances.

Consider that VP Dick Cheney spent the late '90s as CEO of Halliburton ( of which Daddy Bush was a shareholder), the world's largest oil services company, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice sat on the board of Chevron and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans was the CEO of Tom Brown Inc., a natural gas company with fields in Texas, Colorado and Wyoming. The Bush administration and family was steeped in oil interests.

You might also be interested in the tawdry history of the Bush family:

On October 20, 1942, the federal government seized the Union Banking Corporation in New York City as a front operation for the Nazis. Prescott Bush was a director. Bush, E. Roland Harriman, two Bush associates, and three Nazi executives owned the bank's shares. Eight days later, the Roosevelt administration seized two other corporations managed by Prescott Bush. The Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation, both managed by the Bush-Harriman bank, were accused by the US federal government of being front organizations for Hitler's Third Reich. Again, on November 8, 1942, the federal government seized Nazi-controlled assets of Silesian-American Corporation, another Bush-Harriman company doing business with Hitler.
http://www.rense.com/general14/bushsformer.htm

[Mac-7]

Then that's on the intelligence community.

Liberals and Democrats who have been hostile to the intelligence community since the Vietnam War are responsible for some of our intelligence failures since then including bad info on iraq

[Mac-7]

There was 550 metric tons of yellow cake left in Iraq - it was removed in 2008 out of fears that it would be used for dirty bombs by terrorists. Without the ability to enrich it, there was no ability to turn it into weapons of mass destruction. The means to do that were removed by Bush senior's campaign. Were there other weapons of questionable mass destruction - perhaps. Were they in any way a possible threat to America - no. The only possible threat to America was nuclear weapons. Words like weapons of mass destruction = nuclear devices in most people's minds. Would the possible existence of chemical weapons have persuaded Congress to invade Iraq? I suspect not. But couching it as weapons of mass destruction instilled an almost Cold War fear, keeping in mind that everyone knew that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were seething as a result of the first invasion.

I have no idea what Bush Jr believed at the time - perhaps he sincerely believed what his handler's told him, because Cheney et al were really running the show, with daddy Bush in the background pulling the strings.

George was never really all that political. He was pushed into politics. What degree did he obtain in University - an MBA - his interest was business, not politics. When Daddy Bush lost to Clinton in '92, suddenly George was on a political path. Daddy Bush was determined to reincarnate his political career through his son George. He was already popular in Texas as a former part-owner of the Texas Rangers. He was forced to give it all up for a run for the Governorship, which given the competition, he won. As a Republican governor, he was almost a Democrat, pushing for increased funding for education. He served two terms and then ran for President. He was affable, but not a particularly brilliant guy. However that affability and lack of guile made him seem trustworthy and I expect that he had good intentions, but he was not the master of his Presidency, his father was. Daddy Bush knew exactly what was left in Iraq and used it to make the case for WMD's. Meanwhile, his eye was on the real prize, Iraqi oil, the control of which would have slipped out of American control had Hussein been left to his own devices and thus would have adversely affected Bush family finances.

Consider that VP Dick Cheney spent the late '90s as CEO of Halliburton ( of which Daddy Bush was a shareholder), the world's largest oil services company, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice sat on the board of Chevron and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans was the CEO of Tom Brown Inc., a natural gas company with fields in Texas, Colorado and Wyoming. The Bush administration and family was steeped in oil interests.

You might also be interested in the tawdry history of the Bush family:

On October 20, 1942, the federal government seized the Union Banking Corporation in New York City as a front operation for the Nazis. Prescott Bush was a director. Bush, E. Roland Harriman, two Bush associates, and three Nazi executives owned the bank's shares. Eight days later, the Roosevelt administration seized two other corporations managed by Prescott Bush. The Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation, both managed by the Bush-Harriman bank, were accused by the US federal government of being front organizations for Hitler's Third Reich. Again, on November 8, 1942, the federal government seized Nazi-controlled assets of Silesian-American Corporation, another Bush-Harriman company doing business with Hitler.
http://www.rense.com/general14/bushsformer.htm

liberals are such purveyers of false information.

Bush had a minor stake in the bank and was little more than an employee.

But then before General Motors became Government Motors and started producing ObamaMobiles the left hated GM as much as the bush family.

So they accused that company of assisting the nazi war effort too just because factories such as GM-owned Opel in Germany continued running during the war.

Now the beautiful people luv them some GM.

[Peter1469]

Weren't some of them originally our chemical weapons? Also , while I know chemical weapons technically meet the self serving definition of WMD, they are no more able to inflict large numbers of deaths than is a bombing run , and oh yeah they are much harder to control. They would have to use chemical weapons hundreds of times to equal Hiroshima .

Yes. They had US chemical weapons.

[Ethereal]

Liberals and Democrats who have been hostile to the intelligence community since the Vietnam War are responsible for some of our intelligence failures since then including bad info on iraq

There is a bipartisan consensus among "Liberal Democrats" and "Conservative Republicans" on aggressive and interventionist foreign policy. There is little difference in degree or principle. One of the foremost fictions of Republican party orthodoxy is that Obama has been "weak" on foreign policy. MAYBE one could make the argument that Obama has been less aggressive than Bush Jr., but one could make the exact same argument for Bush Sr., or any number of Presidents who didn't spearhead a disastrous invasion and occupation of a foreign country. Apparently, some Republicans think it's "weak" to avoid major disasters? At least Trump has the guts to point out what many Americans across the country are thinking, which is why he has so much populist appeal. Even a large portion of the "right" despises the elite neo-con cabal who monopolizes Republican party foreign policy. Most of them are nothing more than servants to big business and Israel. They prioritize that over the interests of the American people.

[maineman]

Prove they destroyed all.

I can't. Nor can you prove that they didn't. You certainly cannot prove that, if ANY artillery canisters did remain from the Iran-Iraq War time frame, they were viable weapons. Common knowledge as to the shelf life of those weapons would suggest otherwise.

[PolWatch]

Thirteen years after the invasion few people believe that it was necessary. Apparently admitting that mistake doesn't mean partisans are willing to admit the justification for that invasion was less than accurate....go figure.

[Tahuyaman]

There was 550 metric tons of yellow cake left in Iraq - it was removed in 2008 out of fears that it would be used for dirty bombs by terrorists. Without the ability to enrich it, there was no ability to turn it into weapons of mass destruction. The means to do that were removed by Bush senior's campaign. Were there other weapons of questionable mass destruction - perhaps. Were they in any way a possible threat to America - no. The only possible threat to America was nuclear weapons. Words like weapons of mass destruction = nuclear devices in most people's minds. Would the possible existence of chemical weapons have persuaded Congress to invade Iraq? I suspect not. But couching it as weapons of mass destruction instilled an almost Cold War fear, keeping in mind that everyone knew that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were seething as a result of the first invasion.

I have no idea what Bush Jr believed at the time - perhaps he sincerely believed what his handler's told him, because Cheney et al were really running the show, with daddy Bush in the background pulling the strings.

George was never really all that political. He was pushed into politics. What degree did he obtain in University - an MBA - his interest was business, not politics. When Daddy Bush lost to Clinton in '92, suddenly George was on a political path. Daddy Bush was determined to reincarnate his political career through his son George. He was already popular in Texas as a former part-owner of the Texas Rangers. He was forced to give it all up for a run for the Governorship, which given the competition, he won. As a Republican governor, he was almost a Democrat, pushing for increased funding for education. He served two terms and then ran for President. He was affable, but not a particularly brilliant guy. However that affability and lack of guile made him seem trustworthy and I expect that he had good intentions, but he was not the master of his Presidency, his father was. Daddy Bush knew exactly what was left in Iraq and used it to make the case for WMD's. Meanwhile, his eye was on the real prize, Iraqi oil, the control of which would have slipped out of American control had Hussein been left to his own devices and thus would have adversely affected Bush family finances.

Consider that VP Dick Cheney spent the late '90s as CEO of Halliburton ( of which Daddy Bush was a shareholder), the world's largest oil services company, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice sat on the board of Chevron and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans was the CEO of Tom Brown Inc., a natural gas company with fields in Texas, Colorado and Wyoming. The Bush administration and family was steeped in oil interests.

You might also be interested in the tawdry history of the Bush family:

On October 20, 1942, the federal government seized the Union Banking Corporation in New York City as a front operation for the Nazis. Prescott Bush was a director. Bush, E. Roland Harriman, two Bush associates, and three Nazi executives owned the bank's shares. Eight days later, the Roosevelt administration seized two other corporations managed by Prescott Bush. The Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation, both managed by the Bush-Harriman bank, were accused by the US federal government of being front organizations for Hitler's Third Reich. Again, on November 8, 1942, the federal government seized Nazi-controlled assets of Silesian-American Corporation, another Bush-Harriman company doing business with Hitler.
http://www.rense.com/general14/bushsformer.htm


First, the subject of the disagreement is chemical weapons. Second, your disrespect for the Bush's and Cheney really isn't relevant to that discussion.

[Mac-7]

There is a bipartisan consensus among "Liberal Democrats" and "Conservative Republicans" on aggressive and interventionist foreign policy. There is little difference in degree or principle. One of the foremost fictions of Republican party orthodoxy is that Obama has been "weak" on foreign policy. MAYBE one could make the argument that Obama has been less aggressive than Bush Jr.,

Obumer inherited a mess in afghanistan and then created brand new messes in libya and syria and iran.

[Truth Detector]

Donald Trump took former President George W. Bush to task Saturday night, accusing him of lying to get the country into the Iraq War and faulting him for not keeping America safe.

"They lied," Trump said during the CBS News GOP presidential debate. "They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction."

Trump has been outspoken about his dislike of the war in Iraq (though he's fudged the facts about how early he was publicly speaking out against it).

But his comments Saturday night went a step beyond his usual critique. Even Republican skeptics of the war argue that Bush acted with good intentions, so the fact that the Republican frontrunner is the one making the charge is remarkable

"We spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives. ... Obviously, it was a mistake," Trump said. "George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East."



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-george-bush-iraq-invasion_us_56bfe8cbe4b0b40245c6f94b
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-george-bush-iraq-invasion_us_56bfe8cbe4b0b40245c6f94b)


No Republican has ever said anything like this. "They lied" is an extremely powerful sentence. Everyone knows it, but for a Republican presidential candidate to tell the truth, during a debate, as the article points out, is remarkable. Also, it is Trump who is telling the truth.
So, to cover the truth up, all the others will have to lie too. What a show Trump has created. ....... http://www.democraticunderground.com/emoticons/clap.gif

In other words; TrumpTard sounded like the typical low information Democrat stupidly parroting the false narrative of the leftist media.

Another reason I will NEVER vote for the dumbazz.

[Truth Detector]

Donald Trump took former President George W. Bush to task Saturday night, accusing him of lying to get the country into the Iraq War and faulting him for not keeping America safe.

"They lied," Trump said during the CBS News GOP presidential debate. "They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction."

Trump has been outspoken about his dislike of the war in Iraq (though he's fudged the facts about how early he was publicly speaking out against it).

But his comments Saturday night went a step beyond his usual critique. Even Republican skeptics of the war argue that Bush acted with good intentions, so the fact that the Republican frontrunner is the one making the charge is remarkable

"We spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives. ... Obviously, it was a mistake," Trump said. "George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East."



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-george-bush-iraq-invasion_us_56bfe8cbe4b0b40245c6f94b
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-george-bush-iraq-invasion_us_56bfe8cbe4b0b40245c6f94b)


No Republican has ever said anything like this. "They lied" is an extremely powerful sentence. Everyone knows it, but for a Republican presidential candidate to tell the truth, during a debate, as the article points out, is remarkable. Also, it is Trump who is telling the truth.
So, to cover the truth up, all the others will have to lie too. What a show Trump has created. ....... http://www.democraticunderground.com/emoticons/clap.gif

In other words; TrumpTard sounded like the typical low information Democrat stupidly parroting the false narrative of the leftist media.

Another reason I will NEVER vote for the dumbazz.

I presume the TrumpTard now has your support seeing that you tend to sound just like him.

[hanger4]

Thirteen years after the invasion few people believe that it was necessary. Apparently admitting that mistake doesn't mean partisans are willing to admit the justification for that invasion was less than accurate....go figure.

If all desisions could be made with the advantage of hind sight you'd have a point. As is you don't.

[Truth Detector]

The Bush team DID lie when they repeatedly claimed there was absolute certainty regarding Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's.

So all these Democrats, including your candidate Hillary, are also lying?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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 Bill 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

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 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 (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"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 th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

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

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[MisterVeritis]

Weren't some of them originally our chemical weapons? Also , while I know chemical weapons technically meet the self serving definition of WMD, they are no more able to inflict large numbers of deaths than is a bombing run , and oh yeah they are much harder to control. They would have to use chemical weapons hundreds of times to equal Hiroshima .
Radiological, biological and chemical weapons have been classified as weapons of mass destruction for a very long time. In what way do you believe it was self-serving for Bush to use WMD as a shortcut term for the chemical and biological weapons he believed Hussein (in this case NOT Barack) had?

Let's not bother refighting whether or not Bush lied. It is not relevant nor instructive. If you want to discuss ways we could have held the Bush win despite Barack Hussein O's desire for a decisive loss that is fine with me.

[Truth Detector]

Yeah I know, Bush duped the US intelligence community and every major intelligence organization in the world not mention the majority of those poor poor pitiful Dem congress critters. LOL

The dumbest lie ever espoused by the left: the notion that Bush was alone in his thinking and acts.

[Truth Detector]

Whether they "lied" or not is debatable, although I tend to believe they did. What's hardly debatable is the utter insanity and foolishness of the Iraq war and the totally dishonest and misleading propaganda that the Bush administration used in order to rationalize it to the public. And just look at the results. The invasion and occupation of Iraq lead directly to the emergence of ISIS as the international terrorist organization that we know today. And then there is the small matter of the many, many thousands of people who were killed and maimed - Iraqis and Americans alike - and the trillion or so tax dollars that was completely wasted on an epic folly. The Bush administration robbed the world of an alternate future where thousands are still living, ISIS never emerged, and trillions of dollars were kept in America. For this, they deserve the eternal detestation of mankind.

Yep; it's really stupid to not allow a tyrant to invade a UN member state and take it over, to then eject the tyrant and then expect anyone to actually enforce resolutions the tyrant agreed to.

That is the true insanity of those stuck on stupid and who have Bush Derangement Syndrome.

[Truth Detector]

none of those agencies proclaimed absolute certainty. Team Bush did. You do understand that, don't you?

When does intelligence have anything to do with absolute certainty Commander?

[Truth Detector]

How any times a day do you need to say that or hear it said by someone else?

The biggest lie being told today is the one about George bush lying when he didnt

....or that Bush was alone in his thinking and acted unilaterally.

[Truth Detector]

Very well put "E".


As many times as it takes.

Whatever you say.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/lalalala.gif

[Truth Detector]

Very well put "E".


Weren't some of them originally our chemical weapons? Also , while I know chemical weapons technically meet the self serving definition of WMD, they are no more able to inflict large numbers of deaths than is a bombing run , and oh yeah they are much harder to control. They would have to use chemical weapons hundreds of times to equal Hiroshima .

NONE were OUR chemicals or weapons. DUH.

[Truth Detector]

if absolute certainty did not exist, why are the repeated claims that it did not lies?

Because the intelligence community was convinced, as were all the Democratic leaders and 34 other nations leaders.

Of course, in liberal loony land, one must NEVER act or deny tyrants access to WMDs EVER.

[Truth Detector]

It was an absolute certainty that he previously had chemical weapons. It was NOT an absolute certainty that he still possessed them.


the intelligence community never said there was absolute certainty. All of the NIE's contained caveats and qualifiers concerning the less than certain nature of the intelligence concerning those stockpiles. Bush knew that. He had supposedly read the NIEs that were given to him. TO claim absolute certainty when none existed was a lie.

I guess you missed this:

Key Judgments
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs

Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.

Baghdad hides large portions of Iraq's WMD efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information.

Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled.

Iraq largely has rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.
Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.

Although Saddam probably does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them.

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

WHOOPS; I guess the TrumpTard and Liberals who defend his stupidity are wrong again.

[Truth Detector]

It was an absolute certainty that he previously had chemical weapons. It was NOT an absolute certainty that he still possessed them.


apparently they did. And chemical weapons loaded in artillery shells have a shelf life, sarge. I thought a savvy NCO like you would know that. Artillery shells from 1980's aren't a lot more dangerous twenty years after the fact than the stuff under your kitchen sink... certainly not anything that anyone with any intelligence and/or integrity would classify as a weapon of mass destruction, anyway.

Oh, I forgot.... you would, which sort of proves my point, doesn't it?

Whoops!

Key Judgments
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs

Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.

Baghdad hides large portions of Iraq's WMD efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information.

Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled.

Iraq largely has rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.
Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.

Although Saddam probably does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them.

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

[MisterVeritis]

Weren't some of them originally our chemical weapons?
I do not believe that is the case. The Commerce Department did approve the sale of insecticides to Iraq in the 1980s. I remember reading that the Iraqi's used NATO, really meaning US, 155mm artillery, chemical weapon shell design drawings.

And there was some breathless reporting with huge headlines saying Rumsfeld supplied Iraq with chemical weapons. But that is not proven in the articles.

There have been enormous numbers of CIA, and I believe DIA, documents, formerly top secret codeword materials, declassified, probably by Obama at the beginning of his first term. Perhaps the answer lies within them.

[texan]

Boy Trump really mucked it up Saturday. They say the SC voters loves this stuff? Sounded more like an online political forum "debate" than an actual debate.

[Truth Detector]

It was an absolute certainty that he previously had chemical weapons. It was NOT an absolute certainty that he still possessed them.


and there is no false narrative. Team Bush repeatedly stated that there was absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's when no such absolute certainty existed, even within our own intelligence community. When you say something that is not true, and you know it's not true... that's called a lie.

It is a false narrative and stupidly repeating it like an unthinking dullard doesn't make you look any less partisan or stupid.

Unless, of course, you're claiming the previous Democratic administration and leaders in the party are also all a bunch of liars:

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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 Bill 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

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 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 (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"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 th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

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

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


Trump was right. Bush lied.

It's fun watching liberals support the TrumpTard when he engages in THEIR false narratives.

[Truth Detector]

you're such a hack. Don't you ever embarrass yourself?

Prolific sociopathic liars cannot be embarrassed by their lies because they first have to be aware they have a serious problem.

[Truth Detector]

are you saying that UNSCOM inspectors did NOT destroy Iraqi chemical weapons in the early 90's?

yes or no.

Hindsight is such a powerful tool for lying lefty's who defend tyrants and terrorists while impugning their own Presidents for purely partisan political gain.

[Tahuyaman]

Prolific sociopathic liars cannot be embarrassed by their lies because they first have to be aware they have a serious problem.

There probably are many blind partisans out there who either don't see it, or have somehow figured out a way to make them self believe that they are true independent thinkers.

[MisterVeritis]

the intelligence community never said there was absolute certainty. All of the NIE's contained caveats and qualifiers concerning the less than certain nature of the intelligence concerning those stockpiles. Bush knew that. He had supposedly read the NIEs that were given to him. TO claim absolute certainty when none existed was a lie.
Nearly all intelligence estimates of this nature have qualifiers. I believe you know this.

Looking back with the benefit of hindsight it is still not clear what happened to the chemical weapons. I believe they were shipped to Syria and buried in the deserts. It is also possible that Hussein's own military was deceiving Hussein and us about Iraqi chemical weapons capabilities. Chemical weapons, mustard and sarin, were used with great effect during the long war between Iran and Iraq. Hussein was counting on their effective use against American-led forces.

Given the long running support we provided to Hussein's Iraqi military to prevent an Iranian win it is clear that Iraq had a very deep and successful chemical weapons manufacturing and deployment capability. We also knew that Iraq had asked for and we provided them with several biological agents like anthrax in the 1980s. Without human sources on the ground, Bush was extrapolating from everything we knew over a long period of time to make the assessment that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, weapons of mass destruction.

[Truth Detector]

It was an absolute certainty that he previously had chemical weapons. It was NOT an absolute certainty that he still possessed them.


are you saying that UNSCOM inspectors did NOT destroy Iraqi chemical weapons in the early 90's?

yes or no.

The CIA thought differently:

Key Judgments
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs

Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.

Baghdad hides large portions of Iraq's WMD efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information.

Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled.

Iraq largely has rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.
Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.

Although Saddam probably does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them.

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

[MisterVeritis]

Yes. They had US chemical weapons.
I do not believe this is true.

[Dr. Who]

First, the subject of the disagreement is chemical weapons. Second, your disrespect for the Bush's and Cheney really isn't relevant to that discussion.
The subject was whether the premise for the invasion, being WMD's, was a lie as alleged by Trump. Everything about the Bush administration and its history is relevant to how and why the invasion took place. Additionally, the primary focus of the fear-mongering about Iraq was its potential to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. Chemical and Bio weapons were secondary, because they didn't really pose a threat to the US. Additionally, during the first Gulf war, the chemical and bio weapons that they found were of very inferior quality:

“The chemical munitions found in Iraq after the [first] Gulf War contained badly deteriorated agents and a significant proportion were visibly leaking.” The shelf life of these poorly made agents were said to be a few weeks at best -- hardly the stuff of vast chemical weapons stores.

http://www.alternet.org/story/15854/lies_about_iraq%26%23146%3Bs_weapons_are_past_expi ration_date

[Tahuyaman]

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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 Bill 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

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 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 (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"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 th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

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

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003



Throwing the comments of Democrat party Icons in their face just enrages them even more. Or they just ignore it and pretend they never said it.

[Matty]

Boy Trump really mucked it up Saturday. They say the SC voters loves this stuff? Sounded more like an online political forum "debate" than an actual debate.


Nothing better proves his liberal insanity more than when he said that. I hope Mac was listening.

[Truth Detector]

Thirteen years after the invasion few people believe that it was necessary. Apparently admitting that mistake doesn't mean partisans are willing to admit the justification for that invasion was less than accurate....go figure.

Hindsight is an amazing thing; usually hindsight is 100 percent accurate.

Making arguments using hindsight in an effort to re-write history and LIE about it are pathetic and repugnant.

[Tahuyaman]

I do not believe this is true.

The Kurds believed it.

[maineman]

Nearly all intelligence estimates of this nature have qualifiers. I believe you know this.



and I believe that YOU know that caveats and qualifiers, by their very nature, preclude the assessment of "absolute certainty". Team Bush told us there was absolute certainty that Saddam possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. That was a lie. There was no such absolute certainty.

[Tahuyaman]

The subject was whether the premise for the invasion, being WMD's, was a lie as alleged by Trump. Everything about the Bush administration and its history is relevant to how and why the invasion took place. Additionally, the primary focus of the fear-mongering about Iraq was its potential to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. Chemical and Bio weapons were secondary, because they didn't really pose a threat to the US. Additionally, during the first Gulf war, the chemical and bio weapons that they found were of very inferior quality:

“The chemical munitions found in Iraq after the [first] Gulf War contained badly deteriorated agents and a significant proportion were visibly leaking.” The shelf life of these poorly made agents were said to be a few weeks at best -- hardly the stuff of vast chemical weapons stores.

http://www.alternet.org/story/15854/lies_about_iraq%26%23146%3Bs_weapons_are_past_expi ration_date


Neither you you or Trump have any experience in the area, nor did either of you have access to the intelligence gathered by every intelligence agency on the planet.

[Matty]

The Kurds believed it.


Truly.

[Truth Detector]

Boy Trump really mucked it up Saturday. They say the SC voters loves this stuff? Sounded more like an online political forum "debate" than an actual debate.

^Spot on. It was also pathetic.

[Truth Detector]

The subject was whether the premise for the invasion, being WMD's, was a lie as alleged by Trump. Everything about the Bush administration and its history is relevant to how and why the invasion took place. Additionally, the primary focus of the fear-mongering about Iraq was its potential to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. Chemical and Bio weapons were secondary, because they didn't really pose a threat to the US. Additionally, during the first Gulf war, the chemical and bio weapons that they found were of very inferior quality:

“The chemical munitions found in Iraq after the [first] Gulf War contained badly deteriorated agents and a significant proportion were visibly leaking.” The shelf life of these poorly made agents were said to be a few weeks at best -- hardly the stuff of vast chemical weapons stores.

http://www.alternet.org/story/15854/lies_about_iraq%26%23146%3Bs_weapons_are_past_expi ration_date

LMAO @ alternet.

So were all these Democrats and leaders of 34 other nations all lying? The false asinine claim that Bush acted abd thought this alone are repugnant and stupid.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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 Bill 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

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 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 (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"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 th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

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

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[Tahuyaman]

I do not believe this is true.

I believe most or at least a significant amount of their chemical weapons were American made.

After all, we did have a stockpile of our own. It was in our doctrine to use them only in retaliation for a chemical attack against us. That doctrine may have changed since that time.

[MisterVeritis]

The subject was whether the premise for the invasion, being WMD's, was a lie as alleged by Trump. Everything about the Bush administration and its history is relevant to how and why the invasion took place. Additionally, the primary focus of the fear-mongering about Iraq was its potential to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. Chemical and Bio weapons were secondary, because they didn't really pose a threat to the US. Additionally, during the first Gulf war, the chemical and bio weapons that they found were of very inferior quality:

“The chemical munitions found in Iraq after the [first] Gulf War contained badly deteriorated agents and a significant proportion were visibly leaking.” The shelf life of these poorly made agents were said to be a few weeks at best -- hardly the stuff of vast chemical weapons stores.

http://www.alternet.org/story/15854/lies_about_iraq%26%23146%3Bs_weapons_are_past_expi ration_date
I have second-hand knowledge of what we destroyed on the ground. I do not know why the Bush administration chose to conceal the truth about what we actually found. Alternet is wrong.

[Truth Detector]

Throwing the comments of Democrat party Icons in their face just enrages them even more. Or they just ignore it and pretend they never said it.

Well, until they call the leaders of 34 other nations and their own Denocratoc leaders a bunch of liars, it speaks volumes to their false, asinine and repugnant narrative.

[MisterVeritis]

I believe most or at least a significant amount of their chemical weapons were American made.

After all, we did have a stockpile of our own. It was in our doctrine to use them only in retaliation for a chemical attack against us. That doctrine may have changed since that time.
Your allegation is absolutely false.

[Tahuyaman]

and I believe that YOU know that caveats and qualifiers, by their very nature, preclude the assessment of "absolute certainty". Team Bush told us there was absolute certainty that Saddam possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. That was a lie. There was no such absolute certainty.


Repeating the mantra over and over doesn't make it true.

Repeating the mantra in this case does exactly the same thing to your mind as it does with transcendental meditation. It turns one into a vapid entity where anything can enter and pollute your mind.

[Dr. Who]

I guess you missed this:

Key Judgments
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs

Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.

Baghdad hides large portions of Iraq's WMD efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information.

Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled.

Iraq largely has rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.
Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.

Although Saddam probably does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them.

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

WHOOPS; I guess the TrumpTard and Liberals who defend his stupidity are wrong again.
The National Security Archive has posted several newly available documents (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB520-the-Pentagons-Spies/), one of them an account by Charles Duelfer of the search he led in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, with a staff of 1,700 and the resources of the U.S. military.
Duelfer was appointed by CIA Director George Tenet to lead a massive search after an earlier massive search led by David Kay had determined that there were no WMD stockpiles in Iraq. Duelfer went to work in January 2004, to find nothing for a second time, on behalf of people who had launched a war knowing full well that their own statements about WMDs were not true.
The fact that Duelfer states quite clearly that he found none of the alleged WMD stockpiles cannot be repeated enough, with 42% of Americans (and 51 percent of Republicans) still believing (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/poll-republicans-wmds-iraq-114016.html) the opposite. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/07/document-shows-cia-reaction-to-finding-no-wmd-in-iraq.html

Declassified documents available at the link. http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB520-the-Pentagons-Spies/

[MisterVeritis]

The Kurds believed it.
Whether the Kurds believed it or not has no bearing on the truth.

Show me some declassified documents that lend credence to the lie that the US provided chemical weapons to Iraq. They should be easy to find given that so many enemies, leftists, would love to find a smoking gun to convict Reagan, after death, and Bush 41 of war crimes.

[Tahuyaman]

Your allegation is absolutely false.

Tell me what's false there?

Are you claiming that we never developed chemical weapons and included them into our military doctrine?

[Tahuyaman]

Whether the Kurds believed it or not has no bearing on the truth.

Show me some declassified documents that lend credence to the lie that the US provided chemical weapons to Iraq. They should be easy to find given that so many enemies, leftists, would love to find a smoking gun to convict Reagan, after death, and Bush 41 of war crimes.

after the the first gulf war, I personally saw Iraqi chemical weapons with US markings on the casings.

[Tahuyaman]

Whether the Kurds believed it or not has no bearing on the truth.

Show me some declassified documents that lend credence to the lie that the US provided chemical weapons to Iraq. They should be easy to find given that so many enemies, leftists, would love to find a smoking gun to convict Reagan, after death, and Bush 41 of war crimes.

I dont know where you are getting this "war crime" thing, but in our military doctrine we had the ability to employ chemical weapons. Our doctrine stated that we would use them only in retaliation to a chemical attack by our enemy. Our doctrine also stated that under no circumstances would we use biological weapons

[MisterVeritis]

The National Security Archive has posted several newly available documents (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB520-the-Pentagons-Spies/), one of them an account by Charles Duelfer of the search he led in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, with a staff of 1,700 and the resources of the U.S. military.
Duelfer was appointed by CIA Director George Tenet to lead a massive search after an earlier massive search led by David Kay had determined that there were no WMD stockpiles in Iraq. Duelfer went to work in January 2004, to find nothing for a second time, on behalf of people who had launched a war knowing full well that their own statements about WMDs were not true.
The fact that Duelfer states quite clearly that he found none of the alleged WMD stockpiles cannot be repeated enough, with 42% of Americans (and 51 percent of Republicans) still believing (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/poll-republicans-wmds-iraq-114016.html) the opposite. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/07/document-shows-cia-reaction-to-finding-no-wmd-in-iraq.html

Declassified documents available at the link. http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB520-the-Pentagons-Spies/
An article by a radical, anti-Bush activist does not constitute proof:

"As an activist, Swanson co-founded the website After Downing Street (now War Is A Crime .org (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Downing_Street)), based around the U.S. congressional concern of the Downing Street memo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo). Additionally, Swanson embarked on a campaign to impeach President George W. Bush (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) and Vice President Dick Cheney (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Swanson#cite_note-2) through the now defunct website ConvictBushCheney.Org[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Swanson#cite_note-WarIsACrime.Org-3) as well as contributing to the introduction of Dennis Kucinich’s The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush.[4 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Swanson#cite_note-4)]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Swanson

[Truth Detector]

It was an absolute certainty that he previously had chemical weapons. It was NOT an absolute certainty that he still possessed them.


The National Security Archive has posted several newly available documents (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB520-the-Pentagons-Spies/), one of them an account by Charles Duelfer of the search he led in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, with a staff of 1,700 and the resources of the U.S. military.
Duelfer was appointed by CIA Director George Tenet to lead a massive search after an earlier massive search led by David Kay had determined that there were no WMD stockpiles in Iraq. Duelfer went to work in January 2004, to find nothing for a second time, on behalf of people who had launched a war knowing full well that their own statements about WMDs were not true.
The fact that Duelfer states quite clearly that he found none of the alleged WMD stockpiles cannot be repeated enough, with 42% of Americans (and 51 percent of Republicans) still believing (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/poll-republicans-wmds-iraq-114016.html) the opposite. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/07/document-shows-cia-reaction-to-finding-no-wmd-in-iraq.html

Declassified documents available at the link. http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB520-the-Pentagons-Spies/

That was .... wait for it... it's coming...... AFTER THE FACT.

But I can see how liberals would be on the same page as the TrumpTard and enjoying having this asinine debate all over again.

Carry on.

[maineman]

Repeating the mantra over and over doesn't make it true.

Repeating the mantra in this case does exactly the same thing to your mind as it does with transcendental meditation. It turns one into a vapid entity where anything can enter and pollute your mind.

what is false about what I said?

are you suggesting that caveats and qualifiers do not constitute elements of doubt?

[MisterVeritis]

after the the first gulf war, I personally saw Iraqi chemical weapons with US markings on the casings.
NATO markings perhaps. They did use the NATO drawings for 155mm artillery shells.

Show me evidence. For battlefield concentrations, many hundreds, if not thousands of rounds are required.

[Truth Detector]

Tell me what's false there?

Are you claiming that we never developed chemical weapons and included them into our military doctrine?

The great lie is the one suggesting that the US supplied chemicals to manufacture WMDs or even supplied weapons of war to Saddam.

[Ransom]

Whether they "lied" or not is debatable, although I tend to believe they did. What's hardly debatable is the utter insanity and foolishness of the Iraq war and the totally dishonest and misleading propaganda that the Bush administration used in order to rationalize it to the public. And just look at the results. The invasion and occupation of Iraq lead directly to the emergence of ISIS as the international terrorist organization that we know today. And then there is the small matter of the many, many thousands of people who were killed and maimed - Iraqis and Americans alike - and the trillion or so tax dollars that was completely wasted on an epic folly. The Bush administration robbed the world of an alternate future where thousands are still living, ISIS never emerged, and trillions of dollars were kept in America. For this, they deserve the eternal detestation of mankind.

Like arseholes, everyone's got an opinion.

Like many arseholes, many are full of sh!t.

Ethereal's opinion here for example.

[nathanbforrest45]

Donald Trump took former President George W. Bush to task Saturday night, accusing him of lying to get the country into the Iraq War and faulting him for not keeping America safe.

"They lied," Trump said during the CBS News GOP presidential debate. "They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction."

Trump has been outspoken about his dislike of the war in Iraq (though he's fudged the facts about how early he was publicly speaking out against it).

But his comments Saturday night went a step beyond his usual critique. Even Republican skeptics of the war argue that Bush acted with good intentions, so the fact that the Republican frontrunner is the one making the charge is remarkable

"We spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives. ... Obviously, it was a mistake," Trump said. "George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East."



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-george-bush-iraq-invasion_us_56bfe8cbe4b0b40245c6f94b
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-george-bush-iraq-invasion_us_56bfe8cbe4b0b40245c6f94b)


No Republican has ever said anything like this. "They lied" is an extremely powerful sentence. Everyone knows it, but for a Republican presidential candidate to tell the truth, during a debate, as the article points out, is remarkable. Also, it is Trump who is telling the truth.
So, to cover the truth up, all the others will have to lie too. What a show Trump has created. ....... http://www.democraticunderground.com/emoticons/clap.gif


One more reason Trump is rapidly removing himself from my voting preference.

[Truth Detector]

what is false about what I said?

are you suggesting that caveats and qualifiers do not constitute elements of doubt?

The great lie you're engaged with is suggesting that intelligence must first be unequivocal to act on and the equally false and repugnant claim that Bush was alone abd lied about WMDs.

But then, being a dishonest hyper partisan is what you're all about.

[Truth Detector]

One more reason Trump is rapidly removing himself from my voting preference.

.....and from mine even if he is miraculously able to win the Republican nomination.

[nathanbforrest45]

How many people died and how much money was spent on the lie of The Gulf of Tonkin?

[Truth Detector]

Like arseholes, everyone's got an opinion.

Like many arseholes, many are full of sh!t.

Ethereal's opinion here for example.

^Spot on.

[Truth Detector]

How many people died and how much money was spent on the lie of The Gulf of Tonkin?

Over 58,000; but in Liberal loony land, it was all Nixons fault. Kind of like the hostage crisis Carter created was all Reagan's fault. Yes, Liberals really are THAT repugnant, THAT partisan and THAT dumb.

[Tahuyaman]

NATo markings perhaps. They did use the NATO drawings for 155mm artillery shells.

Show me evidence. For battlefield concentrations, many hundreds, if not thousands of rounds are required.


I don't know why you want to deny the fact that the US has developed chemical weapons and guidelines for their use? Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

[MisterVeritis]

Tell me what's false there?

Are you claiming that we never developed chemical weapons and included them into our military doctrine?
I object to your allegation that the US supplied chemical weapons, mustard and sarin nerve agents, to Iraq for use against Iran and the Kurds.

By now there should be mountains of evidence. Chemical weapons are high-bulk weapons. Show me manifests for the large numbers of ships that must have moved munitions from places in the US to Basra.

The US signed the chemical weapons convention in 1993 and ratified it in 1997. Congressional investigations showed that dual-use materials and technologies were licensed to Iraq. In a brief search I found no indications that chemical weapons were supplied to Iraq. Did your search prove otherwise?

[Tahuyaman]

The great lie is the one suggesting that the US supplied chemicals to manufacture WMDs or even supplied weapons of war to Saddam.

Well, I know for a fact that Iraq possessed chemical weapons. I also know for a fact that many of the weapons systems they had were US made. I don't know how they got them, or who if anyone authorized the sale or transfer of those weapons, but they did exist in their inventory. I saw them with my own eyes.

[Dr. Who]

That was .... wait for it... it's coming...... AFTER THE FACT.

But I can see how liberals would be on the same page as the TrumpTard and enjoying having this asinine debate all over again.

Carry on.
I distinctly remember one after another UN Inspection team coming back from Iraq with zero findings of WMDs prior to the 2nd Gulf war. There was no certainty whatsoever that there were WMDs. Lack of corroboration of a theory obviously didn't stand in the way of a determined administration, however. So hindsight, in this case, supports the original conclusions of the UN inspectors.

[MisterVeritis]

I don't know why you want to deny the fact that the US has developed chemical weapons and guidelines for their use? Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?
Why did you create this Man of Straw to knock down?

I have never argued that the US did not create chemical weapons. Have I?

:-) Try to get back on track. I suggest rereading what I wrote as a starting point.

[Tahuyaman]

Your allegation that the US supplied chemical weapons,

nowhere did I accuse anyone of providing chemical weapons to Iraq. I just stated that they did indeed have chemical weapons of US origin. This is an undisputed fact.

[Tahuyaman]

It's amazing how some people just want to ignore or dispute historical facts.

[Dr. Who]

I believe most or at least a significant amount of their chemical weapons were American made.

After all, we did have a stockpile of our own. It was in our doctrine to use them only in retaliation for a chemical attack against us. That doctrine may have changed since that time.
Probably left over from the Iraqi invasion of Iran which was US supported:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war

[MisterVeritis]

Well, I know for a fact that Iraq possessed chemical weapons. I also know for a fact that many of the weapons systems they had were US made. I don't know how they got them, or who if anyone authorized the sale or transfer of those weapons, but they did exist in their inventory. I saw them with my own eyes.
Yes. Iraq manufactured and used chemical weapons during their long war with Iran.

Is someone arguing that the US did not supply conventional weapons (and intelligence - far more valuable) to Iraq?

Can you stay with the thread? This is about weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons and biological weapons.

[Dr. Who]

An article by a radical, anti-Bush activist does not constitute proof:

"As an activist, Swanson co-founded the website After Downing Street (now War Is A Crime .org (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Downing_Street)), based around the U.S. congressional concern of the Downing Street memo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo). Additionally, Swanson embarked on a campaign to impeach President George W. Bush (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) and Vice President Dick Cheney (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Swanson#cite_note-2) through the now defunct website ConvictBushCheney.Org[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Swanson#cite_note-WarIsACrime.Org-3) as well as contributing to the introduction of Dennis Kucinich’s The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush.[4 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Swanson#cite_note-4)]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Swanson
The link provided at the word "documents" takes you to the National Security Archive. You can read the original declassified documents yourself.

[MisterVeritis]

I distinctly remember one after another UN Inspection team coming back from Iraq with zero findings of WMDs prior to the 2nd Gulf war. There was no certainty whatsoever that there were WMDs. Lack of corroboration of a theory obviously didn't stand in the way of a determined administration, however. So hindsight, in this case, supports the original conclusions of the UN inspectors.
And yet we found and destroyed a large number of chemically-filled artillery rounds, and I believe some 122 mm rockets after we defeated Hussein. Can I prove it? I don't know. My knowledge is second hand. My team developed the plans for a portion of the security measures we put in place while the munitions were being destroyed.

There were several bunkers with large quantities of sarin-filled munitions that were too badly damaged for the UN inspectors to assess. Somehow that is missing from the tale oft told.

What is interesting is that Trump, who in my opinion, is wrong, has significant support for the idea that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. We see it here in this message thread.

[Truth Detector]

I distinctly remember one after another UN Inspection team coming back from Iraq with zero findings of WMDs prior to the 2nd Gulf war. There was no certainty whatsoever that there were WMDs. Lack of corroboration of a theory obviously didn't stand in the way of a determined administration, however. So hindsight, in this case, supports the original conclusions of the UN inspectors.

Your selective memory doesn't trump the facts here. And all the lies and whining, and asinine claims that Bush lied or went it alone won't make those lies look any less stupid.

The inspectors were kicked out by Saddam and refused full access. It took a massive increase of military equipment on his borders to get him to reopen access to inspectors and they could never affirm without a doubt that Iraq was in compliance thanks to.....wait for it......it's coming.....Saddams refusal to completely cooperate.

Fact: the CIA suggested they were there.

Fact: we didn't go in strictly because of WMDs

Fact: Democrats in the previous administration made the identical claims Bush made.

Fact: the Joint Resolution was bi-partisan.

Fact: we wouldn't have been there had Saddam not invaded a peaceful sovereign nation.

Fact: we went in on the best information available and attempts to suggest Bush is the problem and not a despicable tyrant like Saddam are repugnant, dumb, ignorant, farcical and asinine and only done for partisan political purposes that continue to endanger this nation and its allies.

Fact: Trump is a glaring moron who isn't a Republican, doesn't know WTF he erupts about, is an arrogant egotistical clown and who is now a hero with the left for parroting the same idiotic, asinine, false and repugnant claims they do.

What the media and Democrats have done to Bush is repugnant and representative of the extremist low life level liberals are willing to stoop to in order to win elections.

[MisterVeritis]

The link provided at the word "documents" takes you to the National Security Archive. You can read the original declassified documents yourself.
I looked through the list. Can you tell me which of the roughly one dozen will show evidence of your allegations?

[MisterVeritis]

Your allegation that the US supplied chemical weapons,

nowhere did I accuse anyone of providing chemical weapons to Iraq. I just stated that they did indeed have chemical weapons of US origin. This is an undisputed fact.
I see. So the US manufactured chemical weapons. Such weapons are maintained under very tight control. Magically, somehow, Iraq managed to get US chemical weapons although the US did not provide them.

LOL. Cool beans. Your undisputed fact must have some evidence, don't you think?

[Truth Detector]

Probably left over from the Iraqi invasion of Iran which was US supported:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war

The US NEVER supported Iraq or Saddam; another repugnant leftist lie.

US policy was clear to anyone with even half a brain; we didn't want either side to succeed and were quite happy both sides were killing each other as long as neither side won.....one a Fascist Islamic nation and the other a brutal tyrannical dictatorship.

[MisterVeritis]

Probably left over from the Iraqi invasion of Iran which was US supported:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Ira q_war
While there is plenty of evidence for dual-use tech transfers, I did not find any evidence that the US supplied American-made chemical weapons (or chemical weapons from any other country). There were transfers of biological agents and even some nuclear-weapons-associated manufacturing capabilities (dual-use).

[MisterVeritis]

It's amazing how some people just want to ignore or dispute historical facts.
True. But I have tried to get you back on track.

[Dr. Who]

And yet we found and destroyed a large number of chemically-filled artillery rounds, and I believe some 122 mm rockets after we defeated Hussein. Can I prove it? I don't know. My knowledge is second hand. My team developed the plans for a portion of the security measures we put in place while the munitions were being destroyed.

There were several bunkers with large quantities of sarin-filled munitions that were too badly damaged for the UN inspectors to assess. Somehow that is missing from the tale oft told.

What is interesting is that Trump, who in my opinion, is wrong, has significant support for the idea that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. We see it here in this message thread.
Perhaps because it is not an original Trump allegation. He is just repeating something that many people have believed since the war began and certainly after it ended.

[MisterVeritis]

Perhaps because it is not an original Trump allegation. He is just repeating something that many people have believed since the war began and certainly after it ended.
What I find interesting is that so many people continue to believe, as Trump claims he does, that Bush lied. I do not believe it. But there it is.

[Dr. Who]

While there is plenty of evidence for dual-use tech transfers, I did not find any evidence that the US supplied American-made chemical weapons (or chemical weapons from any other country). There were transfers of biological agents and even some nuclear-weapons-associated manufacturing capabilities (dual-use).
I believe that if you ask Peter1469, he might corroborate the discovery of American made chemical weapons from personal experience as he was part of the second gulf war. IIRC he has mentioned personally seeing them.

[Dr. Who]

What I find interesting is that so many people continue to believe, as Trump claims he does, that Bush lied. I do not believe it. But there it is.
I honestly don't know if Bush lied, or whether he was told lies and just repeated them. I always suspected that Cheney and Rumsfeld were really running the show.

[Mac-7]

I think bush made a big mistske invading iraq

but I also think he believed there were wmd's

the people calling bush a liar are wrong

[Dr. Who]

The US NEVER supported Iraq or Saddam; another repugnant leftist lie.

US policy was clear to anyone with even half a brain; we didn't want either side to succeed and were quite happy both sides were killing each other as long as neither side won.....one a Fascist Islamic nation and the other a brutal tyrannical dictatorship.
OK.

[Ethereal]

How many people died and how much money was spent on the lie of The Gulf of Tonkin?

A lot.

[Truth Detector]

I honestly don't know if Bush lied, or whether he was told lies and just repeated them. I always suspected that Cheney and Rumsfeld were really running the show.

You can only support the farcical and repugnant claim that Bush lied by branding the previous Administration, most of the Democratic leadership in the Senate and House, and 34 other nations leaders as liars.

[Truth Detector]

I think bush made a big mistske invading iraq

I think it would have been a much bigger mistake to continue ignoring Saddams defiance and efforts to reconstitute his programs. Just like it currently is pretending that a paharia nation will comply with its treaty agreements. One that had already broken them in the past nonetheless.

But this is the feckless, failed naive state the Democrats have put us in by attacking Bush and giving terrorists and tyrants a complete pass.

[MisterVeritis]

I believe that if you ask @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10), he might corroborate the discovery of American made chemical weapons from personal experience as he was part of the second gulf war. IIRC he has mentioned personally seeing them.
This is what I found:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

The publicly released information also skirted the fact that most of the chemical artillery shells were traceable to the West, some tied to the United States.

These shells, which the American military calls M110s, had been developed decades ago in the United States. Roughly two feet long and weighing more than 90 pounds, each is an aerodynamic steel vessel with a burster tube in its center.

The United States has long manufactured M110s, filling them with smoke compounds, white phosphorus or, in earlier years, mustard agent. American ordnance documents (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-navy-technical-manual-on-chemical-munitions.html#document/p2/a180914) explicitly describe the purpose of an M110 filled with blister agent: “to produce a toxic effect on personnel and to contaminate habitable areas.”

The United States also exported the shells and the technology behind them. When Iraq went arms shopping in the 1980s, it found manufacturers in Italy and Spain willing to deal their copies. By 1988, these two countries alone had sold Iraq 85,000 empty M110-type shells (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/united-nations-monitoring-verification-and-inspection-commission-report-on-iraq.html#document/p104/a181224), according to confidential United Nations documents. Iraq also obtained shells from Belgium.

[MisterVeritis]

I believe that if you ask @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10), he might corroborate the discovery of American made chemical weapons from personal experience as he was part of the second gulf war. IIRC he has mentioned personally seeing them.
In my opinion people claiming that the United States supplied chemical weapons to Iraq carry the burdon of proof.

Thousands of artillery shells and rockets were found after Hussein was defeated. Hundreds of tons of American made chemical munitions would leave a trail of evidence. Given the large number of top secret codeword documents that the Obama regime declassified I think it is likely that by now evidence of the US providing chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein's regime, would have been produced.

[MisterVeritis]

I honestly don't know if Bush lied, or whether he was told lies and just repeated them. I always suspected that Cheney and Rumsfeld were really running the show.
LOL. I love your sense of humor.

[Dr. Who]

I looked through the list. Can you tell me which of the roughly one dozen will show evidence of your allegations?
Document 37.

[Tahuyaman]

True. But I have tried to get you back on track.


huh?

[Dr. Who]

In my opinion people claiming that the United States supplied chemical weapons to Iraq carry the burdon of proof.

Thousands of artillery shells and rockets were found after Hussein was defeated. Hundreds of tons of American made chemical munitions would leave a trail of evidence. Given the large number of top secret codeword documents that the Obama regime declassified I think it is likely that by now evidence of the US providing chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein's regime, would have been produced.
Color me skeptical. I don't think that everything the CIA does is documented or necessarily even sanctioned. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html

[Tahuyaman]

I distinctly remember one after another UN Inspection team coming back from Iraq with zero findings of WMDs prior to the 2nd Gulf war. There was no certainty whatsoever that there were WMDs. Lack of corroboration of a theory obviously didn't stand in the way of a determined administration, however. So hindsight, in this case, supports the original conclusions of the UN inspectors.


I also distincly remember the inspectors being denied access to certain suspected sites.

[Tahuyaman]

Your allegation that the US supplied chemical weapons,

I see. So the US manufactured chemical weapons. Such weapons are maintained under very tight control. Magically, somehow, Iraq managed to get US chemical weapons although the US did not provide them.

LOL. Cool beans. Your undisputed fact must have some evidence, don't you think?


All I'm telling you is that Iraq did indeed poses US manufactured chemical weapons. How they obtained them is not something I am privy to. people can speculate on that all they want.

[MisterVeritis]

Document 37.
That does not support your implied allegation that Bush and his team knew and lied.

About 2/3rds of the way through in the paragraphs discussing Saddam I found a discussion of the oil for food program. Money was diverted from that program, along with other resources, to sustain Hussein's ability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction programs.

Hussein also had the benefit of two good examples where his chemical weapons capability were beneficial. The first was his experiences during the long war with Iran where chemical weapons use defeated the Iranian attacks. The second was his belief that Bush 41 did not finish the job of deposing Hussein because of his fear of Hussein's existing chemical weapons capabilities.

Of course the Iraq Study Group was wrong when they said no chemical weapons were found. Thousands of shells and rockets were found.

Thank you for the prodding. Although it took me away from important tasks it was fun to re-read something from my past.

[MisterVeritis]

All I'm telling you is that Iraq did indeed poses US manufactured chemical weapons. How they obtained them is not something I am privy to. people can speculate on that all they want.
Fortunately you are wrong.

Unfortunately, you will never admit it.

[Dr. Who]

I also distincly remember the inspectors being denied access to certain suspected sites.
I believe that they were eventually given access shortly before the war began.

[MisterVeritis]

Color me skeptical. I don't think that everything the CIA does is documented or necessarily even sanctioned. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html
Moving hundreds, possibly thousands of tons of chemical munitions would involve a great many people and leave plenty of fingerprints. Have any fingerprints been discovered? Even if the CIA was disposed to providing American chemical weapons to Iraq how would they do it? The CIA owns no chemical munitions. A few tens to low hundreds of thousands of chemical munitions would have to be secretly moved from existing stocks to shipyards or airports for movement. Protecting the convoys involving hundreds of trucks would require many hundreds of armed men.

I find the fairy tale too incredible to suspend my disbelief.

[Tahuyaman]

I believe that they were eventually given access shortly before the war began.

were the previously inspected sites then reinspected to ensure things simply weren't transferred?

Look, there's no doubt that Iraq possessed a large amount of chemical weapons. No doubt at all. You can spin the politics of it any way you want. The facts still remain facts. Period.

[Dr. Who]

That does not support your implied allegation that Bush and his team knew and lied.

About 2/3rds of the way through in the paragraphs discussing Saddam I found a discussion of the oil for food program. Money was diverted from that program, along with other resources, to sustain Hussein's ability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction programs.

Hussein also had the benefit of two good examples where his chemical weapons capability were beneficial. The first was his experiences during the long war with Iran where chemical weapons use defeated the Iranian attacks. The second was his belief that Bush 41 did not finish the job of deposing Hussein because of his fear of Hussein's existing chemical weapons capabilities.

Of course the Iraq Study Group was wrong when they said no chemical weapons were found. Thousands of shells and rockets were found.

Thank you for the prodding. Although it took me away from important tasks it was fun to re-read something from my past.
The document does mention that the prewar assessments of WMD were inaccurate and I suspect that the author of the document was trying to paint the failure to find WMDs in its best light.

[Dr. Who]

were the previously inspected sites then reinspected to ensure things simply weren't transferred?

Look, there's no doubt that Iraq possessed a large amount of chemical weapons. No doubt at all. You can spin the politics of it any way you want. The facts still remain facts. Period.
Large enough to warrant an invasion?

[Tahuyaman]

Fortunately you are wrong.

Unfortunately, you will never admit it.

dude, I saw the stockpiled munitions with US markings on them with my own eyes. I don't know what your problem is with this?

Do you not want to believe this becasue you think it somehow brings discredit upon a leader you admire? Why are you having such a hard time accepting documented fact here?

[Tahuyaman]

Large enough to warrant an invasion?


Did I argue that it did? I'm arguing the the claim that they did not exist is an out right lie.

Many people assume way too many things when they are confronted with uncomfortable facts. Why can't facts just be accepted as fact without making assumptions about how and why the facts became known?

[Tahuyaman]

Moving hundreds, possibly thousands of tons of chemical munitions would involve a great many people and leave plenty of fingerprints.

like maybe massive convoys leaving Iraqi military installations heading into Syrian military installation?

[Dr. Who]

Moving hundreds, possibly thousands of tons of chemical munitions would involve a great many people and leave plenty of fingerprints. Have any fingerprints been discovered? Even if the CIA was disposed to providing American chemical weapons to Iraq how would they do it? The CIA owns no chemical munitions. A few tens to low hundreds of thousands of chemical munitions would have to be secretly moved from existing stocks to shipyards or airports for movement. Protecting the convoys involving hundreds of trucks would require many hundreds of armed men.

I find the fairy tale too incredible to suspend my disbelief.
Perhaps this will help explain:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html

[MisterVeritis]

The document does mention that the prewar assessments of WMD were inaccurate and I suspect that the author of the document was trying to paint the failure to find WMDs in its best light.
I have actually read the journal the document was contained within. One goal of the Journal is to give examples of how assessments vary from reality. All intelligence assessments are based on whatever evidence guys like me can collect.

Prewar assessments, and for that matter early postwar assessments, are nearly always incorrect. Given that, it does lend credence to my view that Bush and his team did not lie. Only the most foolish among us believe that presidents will have perfect information upon which they must make judgments and form their opinions about what must be done.

They did not find weapons where they believed they would find them. But US forces found many thousands of weapons. WMD existed. They were dispersed around the country. What is not clear is why the Bush team kept their discovery secret. Some say it was to keep the knowledge of their existence from insurgents.

[MisterVeritis]

Perhaps this will help explain:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html
If you read it you will discover that the headline is a fraud.

The article discusses biological agents (around 300 samples were provided to Iraq over the years), and insecticides. Those were properly licensed through either State or Commerce.

Nope. Still no American chemical munitions were moved.

[Tahuyaman]

What's odd here is that there are a couple forms of denial here. There's one group who denies that Iraq possessed chemical weapons. There's the other deniers who acknowledge the fact that Iraq possessed chemical weapons, they just deny that chemical weapons can be classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Both forms of denial are incorrect.

theres a third type of denial. Those who say Iraq possessed no US made chemical weapons. That form of denial is also incorrect.

[Dr. Who]

Did I argue that it did? I'm arguing the the claim that they did not exist is an out right lie.

Many people assume way too many things when they are confronted with uncomfortable facts. Why can't facts just be accepted as fact without making assumptions about how and why the facts became known?
I wasn't suggesting that they didn't exist at all, just that the information communicated to the public and to Congress to justify an invasion was minimally inaccurate and disregarded the UN Inspection team reports. I was once told that by the time the war started they knew that they wouldn't find anything, but the preparation for the invasion was too far along to pull back. Troops were already in place in the Gulf.

[Tahuyaman]

I wasn't suggesting that they didn't exist at all, just that the information communicated to the public and to Congress to justify an invasion was minimally inaccurate and disregarded the UN Inspection team reports. I was once told that by the time the war started they knew that they wouldn't find anything, but the preparation for the invasion was too far along to pull back. Troops were already in place in the Gulf.

I have been completely consistent here. My only point is that Iraq did indeed posess chemical weapons of US origin.

I'll leave it up to you and the others to opine about how they acquired them and what significance it had on the justification to invade Iraq.

[MisterVeritis]

What's odd here is that there are a couple forms of denial here. There's one group who denies that Iraq possessed chemical weapons. There's the other deniers who acknowledge the fact that Iraq possessed chemical weapons, they just deny that chemical weapons can be classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Both forms of denial are incorrect.

theres a third type of denial. Those who say Iraq possessed no US made chemical weapons. That form of denial is also incorrect.
What is odd is your inability to provide any evidence. Given the mountains of evidence available, one suspects that people who continue to make the claim despite the lack of evidence believe their own fairy tales.

[MisterVeritis]

I wasn't suggesting that they didn't exist at all, just that the information communicated to the public and to Congress to justify an invasion was minimally inaccurate and disregarded the UN Inspection team reports. I was once told that by the time the war started they knew that they wouldn't find anything, but the preparation for the invasion was too far along to pull back. Troops were already in place in the Gulf.
The UN inspection team report would have been one small piece of evidence. And then, of course, it is not correct to say that we found nothing. We found many thousands of somethings. We found thousands of artillery shells and rockets in bunkers and buried in the sand.

Why do you persist in this simple error?

[MisterVeritis]

I have been completely consistent here. My only point is that Iraq did indeed posess chemical weapons of US origin.

I'll leave it up to you and the others to opine about how they acquired them and what significance it had on the justification to invade Iraq.
You have an opinion. It is not a correct opinion. But you are completely consistent.

[Tahuyaman]

What is odd is your inability to provide any evidence. Given the mountains of evidence available, one suspects that people who continue to make the claim despite the lack of evidence believe their own fairy tales.

I still don't get why you are not wiling to acknowledge the facts here? It's a documented fact that Iraq possessed US made chemical weapons.

The only area of disagreement is the timing of that. Some say that all US made chemical weapons were discovered and eliminated or disposed of at the conclusion of the first gulf war and others say they weren't

what's your real issue with acknowledging the facts of the matter?

[PolWatch]

If all desisions could be made with the advantage of hind sight you'd have a point. As is you don't.

Please don't include me in with those of you who fell for the Madison Ave. type campaign that turned French fries into freedom fries. I sent e-mails to every representative I could find an address for, objecting to the invasion. I understand why some continue trying to justify their support of the unnecessary deaths.

[Dr. Who]

If you read it you will discover that the headline is a fraud.

The article discusses biological agents (around 300 samples were provided to Iraq over the years), and insecticides. Those were properly licensed through either State or Commerce.

Nope. Still no American chemical munitions were moved.
I noticed that, but biological agents are nothing to sneeze at. If Rumsfeld could put bio agents in Iraqi hands, I wonder what Cheney could have done given his status as Secretary of Defense and rather extensive connections in the defense contracting world? It's interesting that George H. Bush seems to think Cheney (and Rumsfeld), in retrospect, were rather malevolent characters in terms of GW's Presidency with allegations that Cheney and Rumsfeld poisoned the flow of information to the younger Bush. If Cheney had that capacity, what may he have done in George senior's government? Speculative of course, but Cheney didn't suddenly change when he became VP.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/05/george-bush-sr-book-reveals-a-more-dangerous-dick-cheney-than-anyone-knew

[Tahuyaman]

It's mind boggling.

It has to be about politics. People can deny documented facts because they believe those facts somehow hurt their political views. I say that one gains more credibility politically when one can acknowledge and address uncomfortable facts.

[MisterVeritis]

dude, I saw the stockpiled munitions with US markings on them with my own eyes. I don't know what your problem is with this?

Do you not want to believe this becasue you think it somehow brings discredit upon a leader you admire? Why are you having such a hard time accepting documented fact here?
I don't believe you know what you were looking at. Do you know what chemical munitions are? How come there are no documented cases? The American military found many thousands of chemical artillery shells scattered at dozens of locations. If the US supplied the chemical munitions don't you think that would be included in the reports? I do.

We found tens of thousands of Iraqi documents covering their chemical weapons programs. That is why we know they bought at least 85,000 empty M110 155mm artillery shells. If we supplied them with chemical munitions why didn't we find even a single document disclosing that among the captured Iraqi documents? If Saddam Hussein had managed to get the US to supply chemical munitions from the United States do you believe he would have kept that a secret?

Dude.

[Tahuyaman]

I noticed that, but biological agents are nothing to sneeze at.

I certainly never suggested that Iraq possessed US made biological agents. Biological and chemical are two complete different forms of weaponry.

[MisterVeritis]

I still don't get why you are not wiling to acknowledge the facts here? It's a documented fact that Iraq possessed US made chemical weapons.

If it is a documented fact then simply produce the document. I will check back.

[hanger4]

Please don't include me in with those of you who fell for the Madison Ave. type campaign that turned French fries into freedom fries. I sent e-mails to every representative I could find an address for, objecting to the invasion. I understand why some continue trying to justify their support of the unnecessary deaths.
I only include you in the group that believes hindsight trumps the known facts at that time. Unfortunately it's not possible.

[Tahuyaman]

I don't believe you know what you were looking at. Do you know what chemical munitions are?


I spent more than 20 years as an Infantryman in the United States Army training to fight in a potential Nuclear, biological and chemical envioronment. I know how to identify chemical weapons by their markings, whether they were of then Soviet, or US origin.

[MisterVeritis]

like maybe massive convoys leaving Iraqi military installations heading into Syrian military installation?
I believe some of the munitions were moved to Syria. Some were buried in the desert. Certainly the ability to manufacture chemical weapons could be easily hidden. Dual-use technologies are like that.

We found at least one jet that was buried in the sand. It is a very big country.

[Tahuyaman]

If it is a documented fact then simply produce the document. I will check back.

its useless trying to coax some people into acknowledging the facts.

Its amazing.

[Dr. Who]

The UN inspection team report would have been one small piece of evidence. And then, of course, it is not correct to say that we found nothing. We found many thousands of somethings. We found thousands of artillery shells and rockets in bunkers and buried in the sand.

Why do you persist in this simple error?
I didn't say that nothing was found, but wouldn't there have to be a certain threshold of such weapons to consider Iraq to be a threat? Wouldn't there have to be more than what might be expected for self-defense purposes vs the kind of stockpile that would be required if a country was planning invasion?

[Ransom]

Please don't include me in with those of you who fell for the Madison Ave. type campaign that turned French fries into freedom fries. I sent e-mails to every representative I could find an address for, objecting to the invasion. I understand why some continue trying to justify their support of the unnecessary deaths.

And yet voted for Barack Obama who has started several more wars....and his VP Biden and SoS Clinton who both voted for the Iraq War.

Odd.

[Tahuyaman]

I believe some of the munitions were moved to Syria. Some were buried in the desert. Certainly the ability to manufacture chemical weapons could be easily hidden. Dual-use technologies are like that.

We found at least one jet that was buried in the sand. It is a very big country.

So, what are you arguing so zealously here? Are you acknowledging that Iraq had chemical weapons, but none of them were of US origin?

Whats your point here?

[Ransom]

May I ask contributors to this thread to look up Operation Desert Fox in 1998.


In response to Saddam Hussein's continued refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors, the United States Government planned Operation DESERT FOX in the fall of 1998. The primary mission of DESERT FOX was to strike military targets in Iraq that contributed to its ability to produce, store, maintain, and deliver weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The U.S. government expected to achieve several goals with the operation. First, it would degrade Iraq's ability to create and employ WMD. Second, the attacks would diminish Iraq's capability to wage war against its neighbors. Third, the operation would impress upon Saddam Hussein the consequences of violating international agreements, including allowing United Nations inspectors unfettered access to Iraqi sites. The United States and Great Britain launched Operation DESERT FOX on December 16, 1998, after U.N. Chief Inspector Richard Butler notified the U.N. that Iraq had failed to provide full cooperation during inspections.

[MisterVeritis]

I noticed that, but biological agents are nothing to sneeze at. If Rumsfeld could put bio agents in Iraqi hands, I wonder what Cheney could have done given his status as Secretary of Defense and rather extensive connections in the defense contracting world? It's interesting that George H. Bush seems to think Cheney (and Rumsfeld), in retrospect, were rather malevolent characters in terms of GW's Presidency with allegations that Cheney and Rumsfeld poisoned the flow of information to the younger Bush. If Cheney had that capacity, what may he have done in George senior's government? Speculative of course, but Cheney didn't suddenly change when he became VP.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/05/george-bush-sr-book-reveals-a-more-dangerous-dick-cheney-than-anyone-knew
Reagan's correct policy was to ensure that Iran would not defeat Iraq. I mentioned the biological agents because the headline was a lie. A few pounds of biological agents is not that hard to move from one place to another. And, of course, the agents are dual-use. In and of themselves they are not weapons. They can be used to create antidotes. It was also documented that we provided the Iraqis with the biological agents along with many hundreds of other dual-use technologies. They were all licensed for export through the State Department or the Commerce Department. For more information on how that works look up EAR/ITAR.

Chemical weapons are a bit heavier than a biological agent. Compare a few ounces of anthrax to a single artillery shell weighing more than 100 pounds, not including the packing, shipping and handling materials. To make a difference, we would have needed to provide the Iraqis with many tens of thousands of rounds. Is it possible that the dozens, possibly hundreds, of involved people were all friends of the Bush family? Has anyone come forward to claim they were involved in the secret transfer of a boatload (yes, a boat load) of American chemical weapons?

[MisterVeritis]

I certainly never suggested that Iraq possessed US made biological agents. Biological and chemical are two complete different forms of weaponry.
That, however, is documented and is a fact. We provided the Iraqis with several hundred biological agents, and the transfers were documented. A biological agent, by itself, is not a weapon.

[Tahuyaman]

It's not a secret that the US supported Iraq during their period of war with Iran. It was debated in the congress and the subject of many news reports.

We aided Iraq with dual use technology and military weaponry. Again, this was not a secret, nor was it tried to be kept a secret at the time.

[Tahuyaman]

That, however, is documented and is a fact. We provided the Iraqis with several hundred biological agents, and the transfers were documented. A biological agent, by itself, is not a weapon.


Now you are being even more confusing. You deny that Iraq had American made chemical weapons, but say it's a fact that we provided them with biological weapons.

Wow....

[MisterVeritis]

I spent more than 20 years as an Infantryman in the United States Army training to fight in a potential Nuclear, biological and chemical envioronment. I know how to identify chemical weapons by their markings, whether they were of then Soviet, or US origin.
And the Iraqis, who were known to intentionally mismark their munitions were in total accord with the standard NATO markings? Right.

What you may have seen was the M110 155mm artillery shells, purchased through several countries including Spain, Italy, and Belgium. The design for the rounds had been exported to a variety of European and other countries, South Africa, for example in the mid to late 1980s. Lots of people create the M110 because lots of people have 155 mm artillery pieces.

The evidence is lacking...

[Tahuyaman]

UNCLE....... I'm tapping out on this one. I give up.

[MisterVeritis]

Large enough to warrant an invasion?
The chem-bio technologies were not the only reasons to depose Hussein.

[MisterVeritis]

I wasn't suggesting that they didn't exist at all, just that the information communicated to the public and to Congress to justify an invasion was minimally inaccurate and disregarded the UN Inspection team reports. I was once told that by the time the war started they knew that they wouldn't find anything, but the preparation for the invasion was too far along to pull back. Troops were already in place in the Gulf.
You have moved in the right direction. :-)

WMD were found. That is clear. They were not found where we believed we would find them. That is clear. As a former intelligence professional, I can tell you that for the very big issues the intelligence is seldom clear-cut. An all-source analysis team would have added the UN report to the mix. Compared to imagery, earlier HUMINT reporting, and signals intelligence I doubt it would have been weighed as too important. The UN team was a mixed bag.

[MisterVeritis]

It's mind boggling.

It has to be about politics. People can deny documented facts because they believe those facts somehow hurt their political views. I say that one gains more credibility politically when one can acknowledge and address uncomfortable facts.
How ironic.

[MisterVeritis]

its useless trying to coax some people into acknowledging the facts.

Its amazing.
And even more irony. Thanks.

[MisterVeritis]

So, what are you arguing so zealously here? Are you acknowledging that Iraq had chemical weapons, but none of them were of US origin?

Whats your point here?
LOL.

Of course Iraq had chemical weapons. They buried them in the sand all over the country. We found thousands of rounds and destroyed thousands of rounds. Many were 155mm. Some were 152mm (Soviet-style). We found rockets. But I have found not a single instance of US manufactured chemical weapons. Have you?

[MisterVeritis]

That, however, is documented and is a fact. We provided the Iraqis with several hundred biological agents, and the transfers were documented. A biological agent, by itself, is not a weapon.

Now you are being even more confusing. You deny that Iraq had American made chemical weapons, but say it's a fact that we provided them with biological weapons.

Wow....
I am beginning to see the problem. You do not know how to read. Regrets.

[Dr. Who]

Reagan's correct policy was to ensure that Iran would not defeat Iraq. I mentioned the biological agents because the headline was a lie. A few pounds of biological agents is not that hard to move from one place to another. And, of course, the agents are dual-use. In and of themselves they are not weapons. They can be used to create antidotes. It was also documented that we provided the Iraqis with the biological agents along with many hundreds of other dual-use technologies. They were all licensed for export through the State Department or the Commerce Department. For more information on how that works look up EAR/ITAR.

Chemical weapons are a bit heavier than a biological agent. Compare a few ounces of anthrax to a single artillery shell weighing more than 100 pounds, not including the packing, shipping and handling materials. To make a difference, we would have needed to provide the Iraqis with many tens of thousands of rounds. Is it possible that the dozens, possibly hundreds, of involved people were all friends of the Bush family? Has anyone come forward to claim they were involved in the secret transfer of a boatload (yes, a boat load) of American chemical weapons?
That assumes that the American government delivered the weapons and not third party freighters in smaller quantities. If an American weapon's manufacturer was told to supply the weapons, to be paid for by another third party and ship them via Saudi Arabia or some other non-interdicted country that was told not to not overly inspect the shipping containers, who would be the wiser and furthermore, if all of the communications were verbal, where would you find a paper trail?

[Dr. Who]

The chem-bio technologies were not the only reasons to depose Hussein.
Actually, it was always my impression that the focus was nuclear weapon manufacturing. However the first Gulf War decimated those facilities and subsequent sanctions made the importation of fissionable materials impossible.

[MisterVeritis]

That assumes that the American government delivered the weapons and not third party freighters in smaller quantities. If an American weapon's manufacturer was told to supply the weapons, to be paid for by another third party and ship them via Saudi Arabia or some other non-interdicted country that was told not to not overly inspect the shipping containers, who would be the wiser and furthermore, if all of the communications were verbal, where would you find a paper trail?
I suppose once you move into the land of make-believe anything is possible.

Where did the rounds come from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_chemical_weapons_program

We stopped making them in 1969. We moved a couple of boat loads out of Germany under Reagan in 1990 (about 100,000 rounds).

By law we are not allowed to transport chemical weapons. I doubt bureaucrats would have risked their careers to move rounds without a presidential finding. Would Obama keep a Bush presidential finding to move chemical weapons to support Iraq secret (actually top secret)?

[MisterVeritis]

Actually, it was always my impression that the focus was nuclear weapon manufacturing. However the first Gulf War decimated those facilities and subsequent sanctions made the importation of fissionable materials impossible.
Iraq had a very-long-range artillery program to launch potential small nukes against a selected number of targets. He had tons of yellow cake. And we know that 1940s technology can be used to enrich it to make fission bombs. But it is a very hard step to manufacture the explosive lenses and triggers. I never believed he was nearing a nuclear weapons capability. He could have moved toward a dirty bomb capability by enriching the yellow cake. His yellow cake was probably no more than 1-3% U235. I think that 20% U235 would make a nice dirty weapon. That is a big, expensive step.

[Peter1469]

I believe that if you ask @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10), he might corroborate the discovery of American made chemical weapons from personal experience as he was part of the second gulf war. IIRC he has mentioned personally seeing them.

Yes. Both wars.

[Peter1469]

I honestly don't know if Bush lied, or whether he was told lies and just repeated them. I always suspected that Cheney and Rumsfeld were really running the show.

Basically everything was over blown. It was there, just not at the level claimed. But the ability to ramp up immediately after sanctions was in place.

[MisterVeritis]

Yes. Both wars.
I believe you likely saw M110s purchased from Spain, Italy and Belgium, and filled by the Iraqis. I have found no evidence even suggesting that American chemical weapons were provided to Iraq. Have you seen any evidence?

[Peter1469]

It is common knowledge that the US sold Iraq chemical weapons.

Here is an article (http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/) from Foreign Policy about CIA knowledge of Iraq using its chemical weapons against Iran.


In my opinion people claiming that the United States supplied chemical weapons to Iraq carry the burdon of proof.

Thousands of artillery shells and rockets were found after Hussein was defeated. Hundreds of tons of American made chemical munitions would leave a trail of evidence. Given the large number of top secret codeword documents that the Obama regime declassified I think it is likely that by now evidence of the US providing chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein's regime, would have been produced.

[Dr. Who]

Iraq had a very-long-range artillery program to launch potential small nukes against a selected number of targets. He had tons of yellow cake. And we know that 1940s technology can be used to enrich it to make fission bombs. But it is a very hard step to manufacture the explosive lenses and triggers. I never believed he was nearing a nuclear weapons capability. he could have moved toward a dirty bomb capability by enriching the yellow cake. His yellow cake was probably no more than 1-3% U235. I think that 20% U235 would make a nice dirty weapon. That is a big, expensive step.
Yes and Iraq was hurting for money, so I'm not sure that he could have accomplished it. I believe the dirty bomb potential was the reason that the existing supply of yellow cake was removed in 2008, in case it fell into the hands of terrorist organizations.

One thing that I always found perplexing was that on the heels of 911, that the focus was on Iraq, which was if anything a secular regime vs those regimes that spawned Islamic terrorism, including and perhaps especially Saudi Arabia that endorses the most fundamentalist and anti-western form of Islam.

[MisterVeritis]

It is common knowledge that the US sold Iraq chemical weapons.

Here is an article (http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/) from Foreign Policy about CIA knowledge of Iraq using its chemical weapons against Iran.
Given the requirement to register please quote the paragraphs that provide evidence that we supplied chemical weapons to Hussein's regime.

I believe we knew Hussein was likely to use chemical weapons. I have seen no evidence that we provided him with chemical weapons. It is not common knowledge, whatever that means, that we supplied Hussein with chemical weapons.

Convince me with evidence. A declassified top secret finding would be good. Documented American chemical weapons would be good.

[Peter1469]

Fortunately you are wrong.

Unfortunately, you will never admit it.

He is right. I captured a bunker during Desert Storm full of US chem mortar rounds. And during Iraqi Freedom we seized the yellow cake and had it transported to Canada.

[MisterVeritis]

Yes and Iraq was hurting for money, so I'm not sure that he could have accomplished it. I believe the dirty bomb potential was the reason that the existing supply of yellow cake was removed in 2008, in case it fell into the hands of terrorist organizations.

One thing that I always found perplexing was that on the heels of 911, that the focus was on Iraq, which was if anything a secular regime vs those regimes that spawned Islamic terrorism, including and perhaps especially Saudi Arabia that endorses the most fundamentalist and anti-western form of Islam.
Hussein was not abiding by the cease-fire agreement.

Yes, Saudi Arabia is not our friend. I met and briefed a Saudi prince once. While "Yes sir" was very easy, I had difficulty with "Your Highness". It is clearly un-American.

[Peter1469]

Moving hundreds, possibly thousands of tons of chemical munitions would involve a great many people and leave plenty of fingerprints. Have any fingerprints been discovered? Even if the CIA was disposed to providing American chemical weapons to Iraq how would they do it? The CIA owns no chemical munitions. A few tens to low hundreds of thousands of chemical munitions would have to be secretly moved from existing stocks to shipyards or airports for movement. Protecting the convoys involving hundreds of trucks would require many hundreds of armed men.

I find the fairy tale too incredible to suspend my disbelief.

There were satellite photos of military convoys moving into Syria just before the invasion in 2003. The deputy commander of the Iraqi Air Force claimed that they were chemical weapons (http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/).

[Peter1469]

I have actually read the journal the document was contained within. One goal of the Journal is to give examples of how assessments vary from reality. All intelligence assessments are based on whatever evidence guys like me can collect.

Prewar assessments, and for that matter early postwar assessments, are nearly always incorrect. Given that, it does lend credence to my view that Bush and his team did not lie. Only the most foolish among us believe that presidents will have perfect information upon which they must make judgments and form their opinions about what must be done.

They did not find weapons where they believed they would find them. But US forces found many thousands of weapons. WMD existed. They were dispersed around the country. What is not clear is why the Bush team kept their discovery secret. Some say it was to keep the knowledge of their existence from insurgents.

Many of the weapons found in Iraqi Freedom were provided to Iraq from a French company. That is part of the reason Bush kept it quiet.

Obama would have thrown the French under the bus.

[MisterVeritis]

There were satellite photos of military convoys moving into Syria just before the invasion in 2003. The deputy commander of the Iraqi Air Force claimed that they were chemical weapons (http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/).
I remember seeing the images. That is not evidence that American chemical weapons were provided to Hussein's regime.

[MisterVeritis]

Many of the weapons found in Iraqi Freedom were provided to Iraq from a French company. That is part of the reason Bush kept it quiet.

Obama would have thrown the French under the bus.
Are you implying that the US sold chemical weapons to France? or is this simply a reason why Bush kept the presence of WMD classified?

[Ransom]

It was never the US' job to find or prove Saddam had WMDs, that wasn't the US military's task invasion 2003. The destruction of the Iraqi military and dethronement of Saddam priorities 1 and 2.

Bush was appropriate and proper to land on the carrier

[Peter1469]

I believe you likely saw M110s purchased from Spain, Italy and Belgium, and filled by the Iraqis. I have found no evidence even suggesting that American chemical weapons were provided to Iraq. Have you seen any evidence?

I couldn't say where they came from. I can say with 100% certainty that the munitions I captured and touched were marked as if they were made in the USA. They looked like ours.

[maineman]

It was never the US' job to find or prove Saddam had WMDs, that wasn't the US military's task invasion 2003. The destruction of the Iraqi military and dethronement of Saddam priorities 1 and 2.

Bush was appropriate and proper to land on the carrier

don't yo think there is more inherent risk in a carrier trap landing than there is in a helicopter landing on the same deck?

[Peter1469]

Given the requirement to register please quote the paragraphs that provide evidence that we supplied chemical weapons to Hussein's regime.

I believe we knew Hussein was likely to use chemical weapons. I have seen no evidence that we provided him with chemical weapons. It is not common knowledge, whatever that means, that we supplied Hussein with chemical weapons.

Convince me with evidence. A declassified top secret finding would be good. Documented American chemical weapons would be good.

The article that I cited to doesn't link the weapons to the US- only that the US knew Saddam was using them. It is Foreign Policy. You can set up a free account with a user name and a password. No credit card, although they may ask. It is worth signing up for the free service. A decent site.

[maineman]

There were satellite photos of military convoys moving into Syria just before the invasion in 2003. The deputy commander of the Iraqi Air Force claimed that they were chemical weapons (http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/).


ever substantiated by anyone else? any other evidence whatsoever that that took place?

[MisterVeritis]

I couldn't say where they came from. I can say with 100% certainty that the munitions I captured and touched were marked as if they were made in the USA. They looked like ours.
And yet no more were manufactured after 1969. At that time, we had around 40K 4.2 inch chemical rounds. Routine inspections showed that the rounds were leaking. It is against the law to move chemical munitions within the US. I believe you saw something. I do not believe that we supplied Hussein with chemical weapons. That would be too juicy for the left to pass up.

[MisterVeritis]

Many of the weapons found in Iraqi Freedom were provided to Iraq from a French company. That is part of the reason Bush kept it quiet.

Obama would have thrown the French under the bus.
Given that the Iraqis had the AMX 155 mm howitzer it makes sense that the French supplied spare parts and probably ammunition. Earlier I mentioned that the US M110 design had been licensed and exported to European countries and South Africa. The Iraqis bought, at least, 85K empty M110s from Spain, Italy and Belgium. We know that from captured documents.

[Peter1469]

ever substantiated by anyone else? any other evidence whatsoever that that took place?

The satellite photos are fact. What was on the convoys is subject to conjecture.

[Peter1469]

And yet no more were manufactured after 1969. At that time, we had around 40K 4.2 inch chemical rounds. Routine inspections showed that the rounds were leaking. It is against the law to move chemical munitions within the US. I believe you saw something. I do not believe that we supplied Hussein with chemical weapons. That would be too juicy for the left to pass up.

I was just a brand new sergeant at the time. I cleared the bunker. Told the company commander what was inside (as mortar rounds hit the AO) and that was it so far as my part went. They looked US. They looked nice. Not in bad condition.

[MisterVeritis]

The article that I cited to doesn't link the weapons to the US- only that the US knew Saddam was using them. It is Foreign Policy. You can set up a free account with a user name and a password. No credit card, although they may ask. It is worth signing up for the free service. A decent site.
Right. I am certain that we stayed arms length away from their decision to use chemical weapons. I understand that sometimes we have to work with unsavory characters to benefit the US. We provided significant tactical and operational intelligence to Iraq to prevent the Iranians from winning.

I am willing to be convinced we supplied Iraq with chemical weapons but I do not believe it today. Despite all of our captured documents, interviews with key people including Hussein no one has offered any proof that we supplied Iraq with chemicals. Given that we know we supplied them with biological agents (about 300 instances over the years), it seem reasonable to believe that by now some documentary evidence would have been uncovered.

[MisterVeritis]

I was just a brand new sergeant at the time. I cleared the bunker. Told the company commander what was inside (as mortar rounds hit the AO) and that was it so far as my part went. They looked US. They looked nice. Not in bad condition.
I have seen old rounds. The ones that are well maintained can still look new. But I have also seen lots that were less than three years old that looked ancient. Imagine a pile of mortar rounds that were manufactured in 1969 or earlier. Would 30-year-old mortar rounds look good after being moved across the ocean and then trucked into the desert?

I imagine you were an incredible sergeant.

[Dr. Who]

Given that the Iraqis had the AMX 155 mm howitzer it makes sense that the French supplied spare parts and probably ammunition. Earlier I mentioned that the US M110 design had been licensed and exported to European countries and South Africa. The Iraqis bought, at least, 85K empty M110s from Spain, Italy and Belgium. We know that from captured documents.
You might find this interesting. How the dual-use chemicals were shipped to Iraq and who supplied them.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/american-firms-supplying-iraqs-chemical-weapons-production.html

[MisterVeritis]

You might find this interesting. How the dual-use chemicals were shipped to Iraq and who supplied them.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/american-firms-supplying-iraqs-chemical-weapons-production.html
I am sure I mentioned insecticides in an earlier post. I also mentioned that we lawfully licensed several hundreds of dual-use materials and technologies to Iraq. Those were not secret. Nor did they involve US chemical weapons.

We licensed and built an entire manufacturing facility that had some uses for nuclear weapons manufacture. Such is the nature of computer-run precision machinery.

[Dr. Who]

I am sure I mentioned insecticides in an earlier post. I also mentioned that we lawfully licensed several hundreds of dual-use materials and technologies to Iraq. Those were not secret. Nor did they involve US chemical weapons.

We licensed and built an entire manufacturing facility that had some uses for nuclear weapons manufacture. Such is the nature of computer-run precision machinery.
If you reference the link I provided, much of the supply of chemicals involved shady deals among private entrepreneurs who managed to evade the laws around the supply of such chemicals. However, some American businesses were doing business with these characters. It doesn't implicate the government, just some less than scrupulous businesses.

[MisterVeritis]

If you reference the link I provided, much of the supply of chemicals involved shady deals among private entrepreneurs who managed to evade the laws around the supply of such chemicals. However, some American businesses were doing business with these characters. It doesn't implicate the government, just some less than scrupulous businesses.
If they failed to get a legitimate license the fine is one million dollars per instance and a year in jail per instance. I could tell you some interesting stories.

[Tahuyaman]

I am beginning to see the problem. You do not know how to read. Regrets.

no, you are completely inconsistent.

Why are you unwilling to admit that Iraq possessed US made chemical weapons?

honestly, I Think I know who you won't acknowledge that and it makes no sense.

[MisterVeritis]

no, you are completely inconsistent.

Why are you unwilling to admit that Iraq possessed US made chemical weapons?

honestly, I Think I know who you won't acknowledge that and it makes no sense.
I am unwilling to admit it because I have found no evidence whatsoever to indicate that it is likely, much less that it is true.

[Tahuyaman]

I am unwilling to admit it because I have found no evidence whatsoever to indicate that it is likely, much less that it is true.


So, just so I have this straight.

You say we provided them with biological weapons, which our military doctrine says we will never use, but never provided them chemical weapons which we have made known to the world that we will use under certain conditions?

Got it.

[Tahuyaman]

Unbelievable......

[Dr. Who]

So the question is did America supply actual chemical weapons as in pre-manufactured in the form of a weapon or did America supply the components for chemical weaponry, both or neither?

Definition of the characteristic components of chemical weapons: choking agents, blister agents, blood agents, nerve agents, incapacitants, riot-control agents, and herbicides.

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Classified US Defence Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'.

http://rense.com/general29/wesold.htm

Iraq would have had no problems manufacturing mustard gas or chlorine gas weapons, since neither mustard nor chlorine is a controlled chemical.

So, at the end of the day, whether they were supplied with the means to produce these weapons and found convenient American made containers in which to house them or received actual weapons, it would seem that their chemical weapons program was enabled by both the US and the UK.

[MisterVeritis]

So, just so I have this straight.

You say we provided them with biological weapons, which our military doctrine says we will never use, but never provided them chemical weapons which we have made known to the world that we will use under certain conditions?

Got it.
Can you quote where I said we gave Iraq biological weapons?

Are you aware that many, many years ago we declared we would not use chemical weapons?

Can you provide me with any evidence that we supplied Iraq with chemical weapons?

[Tahuyaman]

Can you quote where I said we gave Iraq biological weapons?

Are you aware that many, many years ago we declared we would not use chemical weapons?

Can you provide me with any evidence that we supplied Iraq with chemical weapons?

I'm done... Too frustrated to continue.

[MisterVeritis]

So the question is did America supply actual chemical weapons as in pre-manufactured in the form of a weapon or did America supply the components for chemical weaponry, both or neither?

Definition of the characteristic components of chemical weapons: choking agents, blister agents, blood agents, nerve agents, incapacitants, riot-control agents, and herbicides.

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Classified US Defence Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'.

http://rense.com/general29/wesold.htm

Iraq would have had no problems manufacturing mustard gas or chlorine gas weapons, since neither mustard nor chlorine is a controlled chemical.

So, at the end of the day, whether they were supplied with the means to produce these weapons and found convenient American made containers in which to house them or received actual weapons, it would seem that their chemical weapons program was enabled by both the US and the UK.
Here is what the report actually says:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Riegle_Report

"Administration Act, I contacted the Centers for Disease Control and the U.S. Department of Commerce to determine what, if any, biological materials were exported to Iraq prior to the Gulf War. After receiving the export information from the U.S. Department of Commerce, my staff contacted the principal supplier of these materials, the American Type Culture Collection, to determine the genus, species, strain, and origins of these materials.

Records provided by the supplier show that, from at least 1985 through 1989, the period for which records were available, the United States government approved for sale to Iraq quantities of potentially lethal biological agents that could have been cultured or grown in large volume in an Iraqi biological warfare program. These exported materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction.


Materials shipped included: bacillus anthracis clostridium botulinum clostridium perfringens histoplasma capsulatum brucella abortus brucella melitensis (A detailed listing of these materials is attached.)"
Dual-use chemicals and tools are not weapons. Under EAR/ITAR anyone wanting to export just about anything must receive a license from State, or Commerce, or both before exporting. Many of the items exported would also make sense for manufacturing, packaging and shipping insecticides.

So once again, there is no evidence that the US supplied Iraq with chemical weapons.

[MisterVeritis]

Can you quote where I said we gave Iraq biological weapons?

Are you aware that many, many years ago we declared we would not use chemical weapons?

Can you provide me with any evidence that we supplied Iraq with chemical weapons?

I'm done... Too frustrated to continue.
Are my reasonable requests too complicated? Do you find that words sometimes mean different things to you than to others?

[Dr. Who]

Here is what the report actually says:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Riegle_Report

"Administration Act, I contacted the Centers for Disease Control and the U.S. Department of Commerce to determine what, if any, biological materials were exported to Iraq prior to the Gulf War. After receiving the export information from the U.S. Department of Commerce, my staff contacted the principal supplier of these materials, the American Type Culture Collection, to determine the genus, species, strain, and origins of these materials.

Records provided by the supplier show that, from at least 1985 through 1989, the period for which records were available, the United States government approved for sale to Iraq quantities of potentially lethal biological agents that could have been cultured or grown in large volume in an Iraqi biological warfare program. These exported materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction.


Materials shipped included: bacillus anthracis clostridium botulinum clostridium perfringens histoplasma capsulatum brucella abortus brucella melitensis (A detailed listing of these materials is attached.)"
Dual-use chemicals and tools are not weapons. Under EAR/ITAR anyone wanting to export just about anything must receive a license from State, or Commerce, or both before exporting. Many of the items exported would also make sense for manufacturing, packaging and shipping insecticides.

So once again, there is no evidence that the US supplied Iraq with chemical weapons.
Not weapons, just the means to manufacture them. What other purpose would there have been for providing these agents?

[Tahuyaman]

Can you quote where I said we gave Iraq biological weapons?

Are you aware that many, many years ago we declared we would not use chemical weapons?

Can you provide me with any evidence that we supplied Iraq with chemical weapons?

Are my reasonable requests too complicated? Do you find that words sometimes mean different things to you than to others?

I told you, I'm done.

I get too frustrated trying to engage people who refuse to either remain consistent, or stand by their prior comments.

[MisterVeritis]

Not weapons, just the means to manufacture them. What other purpose would there have been for providing these agents?
There were many dual-use materials and technologies licensed for export by the State Department and the Commerce Department. I mentioned insecticides. For the biological agents, we use them to research antidotes, vaccines, and medical procedures. That is why they are dual-use. The can be used for both good and bad purposes. During much of the period we were allied with Iraq to prevent Iran from defeating them.

[MisterVeritis]

I told you, I'm done.

I get too frustrated trying to engage people who refuse to either remain consistent, or stand by their prior comments.
If I had been inconsistent you would have had no trouble demolishing me. I have been entirely consistent. That is why you are frustrated.

No problem. Come back if you choose to. Or at least tell me where you believe there are disconnects.

[Peter1469]

I have seen old rounds. The ones that are well maintained can still look new. But I have also seen lots that were less than three years old that looked ancient. Imagine a pile of mortar rounds that were manufactured in 1969 or earlier. Would 30-year-old mortar rounds look good after being moved across the ocean and then trucked into the desert?

I imagine you were an incredible sergeant.

These looked pristine.

I was told I was the youngest sergeant in the Army at that time. Promotion points were sky high. I only made it because of jump status.

[Tahuyaman]

If I had been inconsistent you would have had no trouble demolishing me. I have been entirely consistent. That is why you are frustrated.

No problem. Come back if you choose to. Or at least tell me where you believe there are disconnects.

How many times do I need to tell you? You wore me down. I give up. I'm Flummoxed here.

[Tahuyaman]

These looked pristine.

I was told I was the youngest sergeant in the Army at that time. Promotion points were sky high. I only made it because of jump status.


Tell me, do you believe Iraq possessed US made chemical weapons?

[Peter1469]

Tell me, do you believe Iraq possessed US made chemical weapons?

Absolutely.

[Tahuyaman]

Absolutely.


Well, there's two who are willing to admit the truth.

[MisterVeritis]

These looked pristine.

I was told I was the youngest sergeant in the Army at that time. Promotion points were sky high. I only made it because of jump status.
That indicates to me that the Iraqis probably bought new empties and filled them.

[MisterVeritis]

These looked pristine.

I was told I was the youngest sergeant in the Army at that time. Promotion points were sky high. I only made it because of jump status.
Jumping out of airplanes was a lot of fun.

[MisterVeritis]

Well, there's two who are willing to admit the truth.
I believe both of you saw rounds that were created by purchasing empties and filling them. I have not yet seen any evidence that we sold or gave Iraq chemical weapons.

[Tahuyaman]

I believe both of you saw rounds that were created by purchasing empties and filling them. I have not yet seen any evidence that we sold or gave Iraq chemical weapons.

I saw live US chemical rounds a decade before Peter saw them. I don't need to be punched in the nose to know it hurts.

[MisterVeritis]

I saw live US chemical rounds a decade before Peter saw them. I don't need to be punched in the nose to know it hurts.
Cool. Did you see a bill of lading marked FOB US?

What you saw was some sort of munition. You never saw the chemicals. You did not see the process that created a chemical round from a shell body and the chemical filler.

By the way, FOB above stands for free on board. Not Forward Operating Base. It is a business term of art.

[Tahuyaman]

Cool. Did you see a bill of lading marked FOB US?

What you saw was some sort of munition. You never saw the chemicals. You did not see the process that created a chemical round from a shell body and the chemical filler.

By the way, FOB above stands for free on board. Not Forward Operating Base. It is a business term of art.

I saw the US markings on the rounds.

Dude, you're done here.

[MisterVeritis]

I saw the US markings on the rounds.

Dude, you're done here.
Therefore what? Dude.

With all of the evidence, it should be quite easy to point to a document, captured or declassified that shows we gave or sold chemical weapons to Iraq. But you cannot do it. Can you? Dude?

[Tahuyaman]

There's going to come a time when you hand wringers are going to be forced to put the invasion of Iraq in the past. It happened, it's over and we have serious foreign opand domestic issues which need to be solved.

Its fine to remember history to ensure the same mistakes are not made again, but the national obsession over this is bordering a mental illness.

Instead of re-arguing the past, which can't be changed, figure out how to correct the present. Obviously that is byond our current leader's ability.

[Tahuyaman]

I just heard Trump tell someone in an interview that he was for the war before he was against it, then he became even more opposed to the war after it went on for a while.

He actually said that he should be excused from criticism because he took those positions before he decided to get into politics.